\ 


Ps 
Pind 
a 
‘ 


; 


oy Yay Waly 


The Position of George 0. Cannon, to whom 


z 
h 


4 


» the Seat was Awarded. 


rq 


aa 


EG, 


SALT LAK CITY 


| Deseret News Company,’ Prinvers. 
Ep: ORNS Hg te Hatt 
1881. 


Peete 
i RAMU: 1 


Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. A 
charge is made on all overdue 
books. 


University of Illinois Library 


L161—H41 


ae 


wae 


Tn UELEGATE 


f 


wet POSITION OF GEORGE’ O. CANNON TO 
WHOM THE SEAT WAS AWARDED. 


Mm REPLY TO A PAMPHLET ISSUED IN BEHADE 
OF A.’ GG.’ CAMPBELL, 


IN THE fall and early winter of 1880 it was rymored and whispered 
around Salt Lake City,that whatever the result of the count of actual votes 
cast at the election for delegate, Ir. Allen G. Campbell would be declared 
elected, and would be foisted, by some mysterious means, into Congress as 
the delegate representing Utah, although it soon became well known he 
had received but 1,357 votes, to 18,568 votes cast for Mr. Geo. Q. Cannon. 

When events are foretold with accuracy, and immediately we see them 
take place as foretold, itis but fair to presume that there was some sub- 
stantial reason for the prophecy. In this case it is apparent by what has 
since transpired, that long prior to the election of 1880, there was a widely 
organized conspiracy in Salt Lake to force upon the people of Utah, as 
their representative and delegate in Congress, a person whom they did not 
want, would not have, and who received a less vote than any minority can- 
didate that ever aspired to that position from Utah. It mattered little to 
these conspirators that this result could only be compassed by the grossest 
frauds and outrages upon the rights of a free people to choose their own 
delegate. It mattered nothing that the plan could be carried out only by 
violation of every principle of representative government wherever con- 
ducted; that it insulted the theory upon which every political party that 
has ever governed this country has acted. The end was cetermined, ard 
the means were within the ready invention of the instigators. Let us 1ecite 


the steps taken: 


GC 
po eres 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class ; Book 


Pyare) cc aoe 


Ja 09-20M 


[Ht DELEGATE 


s 


bette POSITION OF GEORGE’ QO. CANNON, FO 
WHOM THE SEAT WAS AWARDED. 


Meme PLY TO A PAMPHLET ISSUED IN BEHAEE 
OM Ay Gy  CAMPBELIT, 


IN THE fall and early winter of 1880 it was rymored and whispered 
around Salt Lake City,that whatever the result of the count of actual votes 
cast at the election for delegate, Mr. Allen G. Campbell would be declared 
elected, and would be foisted, by some mysterious means, into Congress as 
the delegate representing Utah, although it soon became well known he 
had received but 1,357 votes, to 18,568 votes cast for Mr. Geo. Q. Cannon. 

When events are foretold with accuracy, and immediately we see them 
take place as foretold, it is but fair to presume that there was some sub- 
stantial reason for the prophecy. In this case it is apparent by what has 
since transpired, that long prior to the election of 1880, there was a widely 
organized conspiracy in Salt Lake to force upon the people of Utah, as 
their representative and delegate in Congress, a person whom they did not 


-want, would not have, and who received a less vote than any minority can- 


didate that ever aspired to that position from Utah. It mattered little to 
these conspirators that this result could only be compassed by the grossest 
frauds and outrages upon the rights of a free people to choose their own 
delegate. It mattered nothing that the plan could be carried out only by 
violation of every principle of representative government wherever con- 
ducted; that it insulted the theory upon which every political party that 
has ever governed this country has acted. The end was cetermined, ard 
the means were within the ready invention of the instigators. Let us recite 


the steps taken: | 


GC 
+o Kage 


a 
es ae 
\ 5 : 
ee id 2 ae 
ee 0° ° 
e e ee 
° or 8 CT 
°, © » ee e 


Ctn Wediediytnth iy of September 1880, while the Supreme Court 
of Utah  was.inesessioniba Hehig on of mandamus was presented, nominally 
on the yelatisa, of, “Gedme R. Maxwell, by Sutherland & McBride, his 
attorneys, pr dying shat. Rebert T. Burin the assessor and registrar of 
voters for Setltshak & County, strike from ihe registry lists the names of all 
women chéfe listed" a 

The object of this proceeding was to annul the woman sufirage law of 
Utah, as a preparatory step to the future proceedings in the conspiracy. 

George R. Maxweil, the relator, was a prominent attorney of the Salt 
Lake bar, had himself been a contestant in Congress for the office of dele- 
gate from Utah, yet he did not appear or argue the cause, but the whole 
matter was left in the hands of Sutherland & McBride, who, by a strange 
coincidence, appear now and all through the case as the managers of the 
cause of Allen G. Campbell. This matter of the appearance of attorneys 
is one of the little items pointing to the real manipulators of the scheme. 

To this petition for mandamus the defendant demurred, and the pro- 
ceeding failed. 

The election came on—a great effort was made to rally votes for Camp- 
bell, but the counting of the vote disclosed that he had only received the 
paltry vote of 1,357 out of a total of about 20,000. Never was a flatter 
result from the effort made. This vote showed that he had no backing 
whatever from any substantial party in the Territory of Utah. The repub- 
lican vote alone was greatly in excess of thatamount. The Gentile demo- 
cratic vote was probably more than Campbell secured. 

The next scene in the drama of conspiracy introduces the remarkable 
document called ‘‘Campbell’s Protest,” printed in the decision of Governor 
Murray, as a part of it, and found in the Appendix. 

The protest says that, calculated by previous elections, there were 
40,000 voters in the Territory at the time of election, that the 1,357 for 
Campbell must be presumed legal, and the 18,568 for Cannon illegal! Why 
are we to presume 18,000 votes illegal? Any proof of it? Notin the 
least. Itis all presumption, and on such a frivolous presumptions alone 
Campbell’s case rests. 

The argument in the protest concedes over 20,000 legal voters, but for 
the purpose of making his case the draftsman of the protest infers and 
asks the Governor to presume that all legal voters stayed at home except 

1,357, and the other votes were illegal. 

To this remarkable protest an answer was filed (also found in the Appen- 
dix, and made a part thereof,) more through respect to the office of Gov- 
ernor, than to the merits of the protest. 

On the 7th of January, 1881, the Governor went through the form of 
hearing counsel, or persons appearing as counsel for the respective candi- 
dates as if he was a court, and had power to receive evidence, weigh 


| 
\) 
| 
; 


> 
a 


testimony, and render judgment. That he never had any power to do either, 
is apparent from the slightest consideration of the nature and duties of his 
office,‘and of the Statutes of the United States and of the Territory—a mere 
ministerial executive officer, having no power to send for witnesses or 
papers, and who avd not send for either, and “eard no evidence, undertook 
to set aside the order of a court 6f general} jurisdiction, naturalizing a 
citizen, and at the same time annul the election returns giving a majority 
of over 17,000. Never was a greater outrage attempted, and never was 
anything called a “hearing,” a greater farce. That Murray had determined 
what he would do long before the election, is proven by the prophecies of 
it by his friends, and the prompt fulfilment by himself. 

It is notorious, that in this whole transaction, he has been governed by 
Sutherland & McBride, whose tool he was, and whose bidding he did. 

After the hearing, Governor Murray prepared a remarkable statement— 
or opinion. By what name it should be called, it is difficult to determtne. It 
was a declaration of the vote, a recital of the protest and answer, with his 
Opinions and conclusions on the questions involved. 

Mr. Campbell did not see fit to print it in his pamphlets although it 
was, without doubt, dictated and written by his counsel and backers. Why 
did he not print it? Is he ashamed of it? or rather are they—the conspir- 
ators ashamed of it? It was recorded at length in the office of the Secre- 
tary of the Territory; a copy of it is with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives. It is added to the appendix of this article. It states the 
actual vote each candidate received correctly, and thus truly and really 
certifies to the election of the person securing the greatest number of votes, 
and that person was George Q. Cannon. This is the language:  ‘*7y%e 
returns show George Q. Cannon recetved 18,565 votes, and Allen G. 
Campbell received 1,337 vates.” See appendix. This is over the signature 
of Governor Murray, and under the Seal of the Territory. No stronger 
certificate of Cannon’s election could be made. 

The Governor then proceeds to decide judicially that Cannon is not a 
citizen, and therefore he gives what he calls his certificate to Campbell 


But the paper he gave Campbell, was anything but the certificate required 


by Act of Congress. The law says: “The person having the greatest 
number of votes, shall be declared by the Governor, duly elected, and a 
certificate shall be given accordingly.” —U. S. Revised Strtutes, Sec. 1862. 

Governor Murray could not truthfully and did not dare certify that 
Campbell was the person who received the greatest number of votes cast. 
He changes the certificate so that instead of ‘‘the person who received the 
greatest number of votes,” it reads “The person being a citizen of the 
United States who received,” etc. A most ingenious device for the Gov- 
ernor sworn to execute the laws of the Territory. Had he made the 
certificate in the usual form, the gallant Governor would have been subject 


4 


to a prosecution for felony. The law of Utah has a statute as follows: 
‘‘Any person who shall falsely make any return, or ‘falsely make any cer- 
tificate of election returns ” * * ad shall be deemed guilty 
of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of one 
thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding two 
years.” —Utah Statutes of 1878, p. 36° 

The Governor sent to execute the law, would figure ‘strangely as a 
criminal for violating them. And yet the intent was to have it believed 
that he was certifying that Campbell had received the greatest number of 


votes, while his cowardice did not permit him to come within the letter of 


the law, and so be liable to a criminal prosecution. He would avoid 
the statute for making false returns, and, at the same time, make it 
appear to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and, perhaps the 
House itself, that he is duly certifying Campbell’s election, when in truth, 
he certifies to nothing material. 

The certificate to Campbell, defective as it was, was not sent forth 
alone; the opinion was added, and thus in effect, there were two 
certificates, one certifying Cannon secured the greatest number of votes, 
and the other, that Campbell was the person deznug a citizen of the United 
States, who received the greatest number, both signed by the Governor, 
both sealed with the Territorial Seal. Both certificates were presented 
to Adams, Clerk of the House of Representatives. He was forced to 
discriminate and decide upon which to act. It was his duty to prepare the 
enrollment for the next House. Hecould put but one name from Utah. 
Evidence that Cannon was a citizen was produced before him, and Murray’s 
certificate that he received the greatest number of votes. It was apparent 
there was but one true course in deciding upon the two ccrtificates, and 
that was to award the seat to Cannon who had been elected, and who held 
the certificate, and was entitled to his seat, which Clerk Adams did, 
and Cannon now occupies and holds the position. 

Great was the indignation of the conspirators when they learned that 
their petty device had not succeded in deceiving the Clerk, and robbing 
a great Territory of its sole representation, 

At page 3, of Campbell’s pamphlet, he complains that ‘‘Cannon made 
application without any notice to Campbell to have his name placed on the 
roll, and secretly, after an ex parte hearing, the Clerk enrolled Cannon as 
delegate.” It is not true that it was without notice or secretly done. 

In Cannon’s notice of contest, he distinctly, in most explicit language, 
gave Campbell notice that he would contest his right to be enrolled. Mark 
the language (Appendix): ‘I have the honor to notify you that I shall 
contest your right “¢ “¢ = either to be sworn or ENROLLED, or 
hold a certificate as such delegate.” 


With what truth does Campbell say he had no notice, when here is the ° 


5 


most formal one, in the most formal document connected with the contest? 
That notice isfdated January 20, ’81, and was served, and Campbell’s 
answer put in, long before the action of Mr. Adams. Where and when 
could Mr. Cannon contest the right of Mr. Campbell to be “‘exrodled,” ex- 
cept at the time of the enrollment, before the enrolling officer—the Clerk? 

Neither is it true that the Clerk acted secretly—there is no pretence 
that either Campbell, or his attorney, or any one for him, éither sought to 
be present, or applied to the Clerk to know when he could hear them or 
where, or indicated their intention to appear. The only claim in Camp- 
bell’s circular is that on the tenth day of February, McBride and Willets 
(M. C. from Michigan), went to the Clerk, and the certificate was given 
him. Afterwards, at some indefinite time not stated, Campbell asked 
Adams if he was going to put his name on the roll. Adams said if he 
(Campbell) “shad a certificate, his name would appear on the roll.” Mani- 
festly this conversation was before Adams had examined any certificates, 
or knew the nature of the contest before him. When Adams examined 
the certificates, and found that Campbell’s was insufficient, and that it 
appeared by the certificate of the Governor that Cannon had been elected, 
then the case was changed, and the seat was awarded to the person elected. 

The duty of the Clerk is stated in Sec. 31, Revised Statutes, as fol- 
lows: 

“SEc. 31.—Before the first meeting of each Congress the Clerk of the 
next preceding House of Representatives shall make a roll of the Repre- 
sentatives-elect, and place thereon the names of those persons, and of 
such persons only, whose credentials show that they were regularly elected 
in accordance with the laws of their States respectively, or the laws of 
- the United States.” 

The documents that Murray had prepared clearly stated that Cannon 
was the ferson “regularly elected,” and that Campbell was not elected. 
It is not true that Cannon was awarded a secret hearing; in truth he had 
no hearing before Adams at all, but appeared and submitted the certificate 
which stated he received the greatest number of votes, and the Clerk 
refused to hear him in any argument, because the other party had not seen 
fit to appear. 

What is the effect of Adams’ action? The seat has been awarded to 
Cannon by reason of Murray’s certificate. Campbell knew well the state- 
ments in and form of those papers. He filed no notice of contest. The 
law of Congress says (Revised Statutes, Sec. 105): ‘*Whenever any per- 
son intends to contest an election of any member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States, he shall, within thirty days after the result 
of such election shall have been determined by the officer or board of can- 
vassers authorized by law to determine the same, give notice, in writing, to 
the member whose seat he designs to contest, of his intention to contest 


6 


the same, and, in such notice, shall specify ‘particularly the grounds upon 
which he relies in the contest.” 

Campbell knew. within thirty days, that Cannon was elected; he knew 
that Murray had decided and filed his decision that Cannon received 
18,568 votes to 1,357 for Campbell; and yet he permits the thirty days to 
pass by and files no notice of contest. He has failed to file any even now> 
at the meeting of Congress. By the act of Congress he is barred and pro- 
hibited from making any contest, or questioning the election of Cannon. 
Cannon, then, is the Delegate from Utah, unquestioned and uncontested. 

Nor will it aid Campbell’s case that Cannon did file a notice of contest. 
As Murray had, in effect, given two certificates, and the thirty days would 
expire before any enrollment could be made, and what action might be 
taken between conflicting certificates could not be ‘foreseen, Cannon took 
the precaution to contest the declaration that Campbell had been elected. 
He has succeeded in the first part of the notice—the enrollment—and the 
further prosecution of the contest is immaterial. 

The citizenship of Cannon is denied in the circular of Campbell and 
in the canvass of Murray. This question is not new. Mr. Cannon was 
elected to the Forty-fourth Congress, R. N. Baskin was the rival candidate, 
received a large vote, and contested the seat. All the testimony now pro- 
duced and sworn to was then laid before the comnittee of Congress. 
Jabez G. Sutherland, now of the counsel for Camptell, then took testi- 
mony as counsel for Cannon. The committee was composed of an 
unusually able array of lawyers. 

Mr. Baskin was, himself, an able and prominent lawyer; he appeared 
personally before the committee, and made an elaborate and thorough argu- 
ment reviewing the whole case. The committee carefully examined and con- 
sidered the case, decided and reported that Cannon was a citizen, and 
entitled to be a member of the House. This would seem to be an effectual 
and final disposition of the whole matter. But Campbell’s circular 
again reviews and imitates the arguments of Mr. Baskin. 

Cannon came to the United States before he was eighteen, and remained 
until after he was twenty-one; afterwards, he went on a mission for the 
‘‘“Mormon” church, and immediately after his return in 1854—sixteen years 
after he first came to this country, he was naturalized. These facts were 
stated to the United States District Court, as one of the witnesses still 
living narrates. (See testimony of Elias Smith.) That court decided that 
Cannon was entitled to be naturalized. ‘The decision was correct. Where 
had been Cannon’s /owz all these years? The object of his absence—to 
make converts to the ‘‘Mormon” Church at Salt Lake; the place he went 
to—the Sandwich Islands; the ties that bound him to Salt Lake, all 
prove beyond question, that he considered the latter place his home, and 
intended to make it such, That after he had once actually removed and 


| 


lived here, his home could be established here has been abundantly 
decided. The authorities were so fully reviewed on this branch of the 
subject by Chas. A. Eldredge, in his brief before the committee of the 
Forty-fourth Congress, that we take the liberty to use his language, as 
follows: 

“Tt is a fact of history and tradition of that people, known to all who 
know anything of them, that every intelligent man amongst them is a 
minister of their religion, under its canons liable to be and is at some time 
sent abroad as missionary and agent, to recruit for their church and popu- 
lation. This has been at all times the great source of wealth, growth, and 
extension of that prosperous, peculiar, and wonderfnl people. This mis- 
sionary agency has been really a part of their system, and continues to be 
evento this day. It was in this work Mr. Cannon was engaged, and 
through his and his fellow-missionaries’ influence and labora large number 
were induced to leave the Sandwich Islands and settle in Utah. His labor 
was to get followers of his faith and doctrine to make their homes in that 
Terrirory—not tomake a home for himself in the Sandwich Islands. It 
will indeed be a matter of news to him and his people, if not a surprise, 
that whoever goes out on this duty loses his own home and residence 
among his own people; thatin recruiting for settlers and citizens he throws 
off his own citizenship, and becomes himself a stranger and alien in his 
own land. Sucha doctrine is no less sirange than horrible; that in the 
act of going out to persuade others to join them and make their homes and 
residences with them, he who goes expatriates himself and abandons his 
own country and home, But we will not pursue this subject further. The 
law is not so unreasonable and absurd. ‘The court,in adjudging the 
naturalization to Mr. Cannon, rightfully held otherwise. Residence once 
made and acquired, is not abandoned without zztention of abandonment. 
It remains till another is zztentzonally acquired. Residence is the term 
used in the naturalization laws, and it was vesedence which the court adju- 
dicated in the granting naturalization to Mr. Cannou. 

‘*Thecourt gave to the term veszded its ordinary and accepted meaning. 
To reside in a particular place one or five years does not necessarily 
require the person to remain fixed and stationery in the locality during all 
the period of time. Having established the residence, he may go and come 
at his pleasure, and the place remain his residence. This has been 
determined legislatively as well as ‘judicially. The naturalization act of 
1802 required vesedence in the United States for the ‘continued term of five 
years next preceding his admission.’ This act was construed by the courts 
and the term given its common and ordinary definition and meaning. In 
1813, Congress thought wise to confine the applicant within the United 
States all the time during the entire sive years. On the 3d of March of 
that year, an act was passed amending the previous law by adding to it, 


o 
o 


‘Without being at any time during the five years out of the territory of the 
United States. This amendment was given by the courts the most narrow 
and strict construction. One court in the State of New York”held that a 
person who, during the five years, while traveling on a steamboat which 
touched at a Canadian port, went out upon the dock for only a few minutes, 
was not entitled to naturalization. This act, thus construed, was looked 
upon as illiberal and unwise, calculated to hinder and deter emigration, and 
Congress, by an act approved June 26, 1848, amended the law by repealing 
the words, ‘Without being at any time during the said five years out of the 
territory of the United States.’ Thus it now stands, leaving the term ves7- 
dence and its meaning and effect to be determined according to its ordinary 
acceptation by the courts administering the law. The legislative construc- 
tion would seem to be clear that the law does not, and that it was not the 
intention to confine the person contemplating naturalization during the five 
years to the territory of the United States. Heis only to bea resident 
thereof. 

‘We do not suppose it is questioned or doubted thnt Mr. Cannon 
aciually acguzred a residence in the United States and the Territory of 
Utah, within the meaning of the xatwralization laws, previous to his being 
sent a missionary to the Sandwich Islands. He had been in Nauvoo, 
Illinois, and Salt Lake seven or eight years, and left his family at the latter 
place when he went upon his mission. The place was, therefore, and 
remained his residence, unless he abandoned it for another. There is no 
pretence that he went or intended to go to any other place than the Sand- 
wich Islands. The place of residence once acquired remains in law and 
in fact his residence till another is selected. The only question then 
which the court had to adjudicate on the application for naturalization was 
whether, when he went from Salt Lake to the Safidwich Islands, he 
became a resident there; whether he gave up Utah and took up his resi- 
dence where he went. Upon this all the authorities agree, and as far as I 
have been able to examine, without an exception, that it depends upon the 
intention with which he left Utah and took up his abodezin the Sandwich 
Islands. Wtihin the meaning of the. naturalization laws, there is little 
difference between residence and domicil; both depend upon and are 
determined by the zz¢evtzon. It may be that a residence may be had in a 
place where the party has no domicil, but che cntention is the controlling 
consideration in the establishment of either. ; 

‘““McCrary’s Election Law, p. 35 3. 39 to 41. 

Story in his work on Conflict of Laws‘ % 43, page 39, commenting on 
Vattel’s definition of domicil, wherein he defined it to be ‘a fixed residence 
zn any place, with intention of always staying there, says: ‘This 7s not an 
accurate statement. That place ts properly the domicil of a person in 
which his habitation is fixed, without auy present intenteon of removing 


9 


therefrom.’ Story further remarks: ‘The definition of the word domzc7l 
is, however, not without difficulty, and in alate case it was observed by 
Dr. Lushington that, although so many powerful minds had been applied 
to this question, there is no universally-agreed definition of the term; no 
agreed enumeration of the ingredients which constitute domicil; the gra- 
dation from residence to domicil consists both of czrcumstances and inten. 
tion.’ And at 2 44, page 40: ‘Two things must concer to constitute 
domicil; first, veszdence; and, secondly, zztextzon of making it the pos 
of the party. Zhere must Ge the fact and the intent. - 
However, actual residence is not indispensable to retain a domicil after itis 
once acquired; but it is retained azimo solo by the mere intention not to 
change it or to adopt another.’ 

“eT f, therefore, a person leaves his home for temporary purposes, but 
with an intention to return to it, this change of place is not in law a change 
of domicil.’ 

“Phillimore, in his Law of Domicil, p. 71, says: ‘There must be both 
animus et factum, this is the result of all the cases. That a domicil once 
acquired remains until another is acquired, or that acquired first aban- 
doned. I admit all that has been said, that length of time ts not important; 
one day will be sufficient, provided the anzmus exists; if a person goes 
from one country to another with intention of remaining, that is sufficient; 
whatever time he may have lived there is not enough unless there be an 
intention of remaining. Again, at page 98: ‘It may be taken as a gen- 
eral maxim of European and American law, that every person swz jurzs is 
at liberty to choose his domicil, and to change it according to his inclina- 
tion.’ Again, Philimore, p. 146, speaking of American dicta, says: ‘In 
questions on this subject, the chzef portnt to be considered is the azzmus 
manendai, and courts are to devise such reasonable rules of evidence as 
may establish ¢he fact of intention. If it appear that the intention of 
removing was to make a permanent settlement, or for an indefinite time, 
the right of domicil is acquired by a residence of a few days.’ Every man 
is viewed by the law of nations as a member of the society in which he is 
found. Residence is prima facze evidence of national character; suscep- 
tible, however, at all times of explanation. If it be for a sfecial purpose, 
and transient in its nature, z¢ shall not destroy the original or prior national 
character; but if it be taken up auzmus manendi, then it becomes a dom- 
icil, superadding to the original or prior character the rights and privileges 
as well as the disabilities and penalties of a citizen or subject of the 
country in which the residence is established.’ 

“Again, page 148: ‘It has been said by some civilians that when the 
person retained the intention of returning to his former domicil, a ¢housand 
years would not suffice to establish a new one? 


“Page 149: ‘No particular time is required; but when the two circum- 
2 


| Ze) 


stances of actual residence and intentional residence concur, then it is that 
a change of domicil is effected.’ 

“It is seen, therefore, that removal from one place to another merely 
does not make the latter place the residence; nor the intention to remove 
and remain there does not constitute it the residence. Both must concur. 
Neither can create the residence without the other. 

‘Mr. Story, in his work on Conflict of Laws, 3? 44, says: -‘However, 
in many cases, actual residence is not indispensable to retain a domicil, 
after it is once acquired; but it is retained, azo solo, by the mere inten- 
tion not to change it or adopt another. If, therefore, a person leaves his 
home for temporary purposes, but with an intention to return to it, this 
change of place is not in law a change of domicil. Thus, if a person 
should go on a voyage to sea, or to a foreign country, for health or for 
pleasure, or for business of a temporary nature, with an intention to return, 
such transitory residence would not constitute a ew domzcil, or amount to 
an abandonment of the old one; for it is not the mere act of inhabitancy in 
a place which makes it the domicil, but it is the fact coupled with the inten- 
tion of remaining azzmo manendi.’ 

‘Mr. Secretary Marcy, in his letter in Koszta’s case, says: ‘The 
authorities already referred to show that to lose a domicil when once ob- 
tained the domiciled person must leave the country of his residence with 
the intention to abandon that residence, and must acquire a domicil in 
another.’ 

‘‘Gardner’s Institutes, page 454. 

‘It seems to us, admitting every fact that may be contended for, the 
court, upon the authorities already cited, could not have decided otherwise 
than that Mr. Cannon had resided in the United States and in Utah as 
recited in his certificate of naturalization. Every fact now appearing tends 
to that conclusion. Mr. Cannon was, while in the Sandwich Islands, a 
mere sojourner. His calling and pursuit were temporary—he neither 
gained nor sought a residence there. Hereturned as soon as his calling 
ended. Every presumption upon the facts is against his having aban- 
doned his residence in Utah to permanently cast his lot in with the bar- 
barian inhabitants of those Islands. The courts have always held the pre- 
sumption strongly against the intention of domicil in such cases, with such 
peoples. 

‘Lord Stowell was inclined to the opinion that a Christian would not 
acquire a domicilin a Mahometan country. His language was: ‘I give 
no opinion whether a British subject can or cannot acquire a Turkish dom- 
icil; but this I must say, 7 chink every presumption ts against the intention 
of a British Christian subject voluntarily becoming domiciled in the 
dominion of the Porte.’ 

‘‘Phillimore, page 157. 


II 


“Tt would, it seems to us, require very strong circumstantial’ proof to 
satisfy any court that a man of Mr. Cannon’s intelligence, cultivation and 
learning, intended, in the very morning of his life, at the age of twenty-two 
years, to abandon the beautiful and picturesque valley of Salt Lake, the 
home of his young manhood and early adoption of himself and family, and 
all the bright prospects that were opening up before his young ambitions of 
becoming a leading man among his people, for a home, residence, society 
and life with the ignorant, debased and heathen natives of the Sandwich 
Islands. 

‘Love of adventure, Christian faith and duty may be supposed to lead 
men of education and cultivated taste to sacrifice every other pleasure and 
for a time devote themselves to religious labor in such fields, but it would 
be a great tax upon our credulity to believe men of sound mind would do 
it for all time.” 

The action of the Court admitting Cannon, is attested by two docu- 
ments: 1. Itis foundina book in the office of the Supreme Court of 
Utah, originally a book of blanks, but at the page in question, filled up in 
the handwriting of and signed by one W. I. Appleby, who was then clerk 
both of the District and Supreme Court. The fact that the clerk was 
clerk of both courts explains how the book came to be among the Supreme 
Court records; it would be an easy and natural occurence, when the office 
came to be divided and a different clerk provided for each court, for the books, 
which theretofore had been kept by one man, to become confused and get 
into the wrong office, especially as the Supreme Court sometimes admitted 
persons to citizenship, and the records of such admission were in the same 
book with the records of the District Court, the clerk of both courts 
not thinking it unnecessary to keep separate books for each. 

The fact that this naturalization does not appear on the journal, but in 
a separate book, is explained by the order (Exhibit ‘“B’’), directing the 
Marshal to procure “a book with blanks printed for  record- 
ing declarations and naturalizations for the use of the court.” This order 
was made January 18, 1854, and the blank book was purchased in 1851, and 
therefore, Campbell’s pamphlet says this could not have been the book 
ordered. Why not? Could it not be possible and is it not probable 
that the clerk originally obtained this book for convenience merely; that 
for the pupose of making a legal record, the above order was made? The 
making the order constituted it a record of the Court. The order was 
made months before the naturalization of Cannon. But Campbell’s 
article argues that this cannot be a record belonging to the office, because 
it is only certified by the clerk who keptit.. Who else should authenticate 
it? Is it the business of the judge to write his name on the flyleaf to authen- 
ticate a record? Noone heretofore ever heard of such a duty; neither is 
this the work of a “subordinate” ass uggested by Campbell’s pamphlet, p. 


12 


7. The clerk of the court is not a “‘subordinate,” he is a distinctive branch 
and officer of the ‘‘court;” itis part of his duty and office to keep the records 
of the court; to procure and designate the various books and journals in 
which the proceedings of the court are recorded. This order from the 
court, directing a book to be prepared for naturalizations dispensed with 
the necessity of the presiding judge signing each day’s proceedings. If 
the clerk signed the proceedings, it was sufficient. No question is made 
as to the signature of the clerk. It is proven to be his own handwriting. 
He died long since, and could not have prepared this book for this occa- 
sion. On this subject we call the attention of the language of Judge 
Blatchford, /7z Re Coleman, 15 Blatchford 428: 

“Tt is urged, by the attorney for the United States, that there is nothing 
to show that the book labelled on the back ‘Naturalization Index,’ and 
found in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court, was ever regarded 
by that court as a record, or that that court even knew of its existence; that 
itis as much a private, unofficial book as the note paper in the clerk’s desk 
is private, unofficial paper; that there is nothing to show when the entries 
in it were made, nor by whom they were made; that, for all that appears 
to the contrary, they were made up from the affidavits alone, some time 
after the time when the affidavits purport to have been made; that it does 
not appear that the book was kept even by the authority or direction of the 
clerk of the court; and that it may have been made up by, and have been 
the property of, some deputy who used it as an aid in making searches. 
There is no evidence tending to show that what is thus conjectured has any 
foundation in fact. It was open to the United States to show, that the 
‘Naturalization Index’ was not regarded by the Superior Court as a record, 
or that its existence was unknown to the court, or that it was a private, 
unofficial book, or that the book was not kept by the authority or direction 
of the clerk of the court, or that it was the property of some deputy. The 
record in the present case contains a certificate signed by the present clerk 
of the Superior Court, and attested by the seal of that Court, certifying 
that the copy, before set forth, of the entry in regard to Coleman, in such 
‘Naturalization Index,’ ‘is a true extract from the record of naturalizations 
of this court, remaining in my office, to date,” which date is November 
22d, 1878. When a certificate of the clerk of a court, under its seal, certi- 
fying that a book is a ‘record of naturalizations’ of the court, is presented 
and accepted as evidence of the existence in the book, of the original entry 
of which a copy is annexed to the certificate, and no evidence is produced 
that the signature of the clerk is forged, or that the seal is not an impres- 
sion from the true seal, or that the book has no existence, or that the entry 
is notin it, and when it appears that the book is in the office of the clerk 
of the court, and has on it and in it marks designating it as the property of 
the court, and as containing transactions of the court, and the entry in ques- 


13 


tion in it corresponds with the contents of papers on file in the office of the 
clerk of the court, which papers purport to be genuine, anc the genuine- 
ness of which is not impeached, and which purport to have been filed on 
the day when the particular transaction took place, it is a proper legal con- 
clusion, that the court regarded the book as one of its records, and knew 
of its existence, and that it is not a private, unofficial book, and that it was 
kept by the authority and direction of the court and of its clerk, and that 
it was not the property of some deputy. So, too, itis a proper legal con- 
clusion, on the same evidence, that the entry in the book was made ata 
proper time and by proper authority.” 

2. Cannon has other and higher evidence of the action of court 
admitting him to be a citizen than this book; he has the certificate of 
naturalization itself, under the seal of the court, in the handwriting of the 
clerk. (See depositions of Snow, Cummings, Smith and Exhibit Z.) No 
attempt is made to show that this certificate is not under the genuine seal 
of the court, in the genuine handwriting of the clerk, and duly issued 
to Cannon. This alone is complete proof of citizenship. If the clerk and 
judge, or all the officers of court failed to do their duty in recording, or 
entirely failed to record naturalizations of citizenship, it would not deprive 
a single person to whom the privilege of citizenship had been given of the 
rights acquired thereby. 

Congress, by a general law, has granted the gift of citizenship to all 
foreigners who will comply with the terms of the grant; the court simply 
can determine whether the applicant fills the measure; when the court has 
heard the evidence, decided the fact, and pronounced the judgment declar- 
ing the applicant a citizen; no power short of revolution can deprive him 
of that franchise, or take from him any of the rights and privileges of any 
other citizen of the United States. If the judge or clerk fail to make any 
sign or mark whatever, the man is stilla citizen. He has complied with 
the conditions of the gift on his part, and it is the fault of others if the 
records of his rights areincomplete. On the subject Judge Blatchford says: 

‘It is hardly to be supposed that Congress intended to make the appli- 
cant for citizenship responsible for a non-compliance with any other 
conditions than such as he had the power to comply with. The appli- 
cant can declare his intention, and can take the prescribed oath and make 
the renunciation. But he cannot see to it that the proceedings and renun- 
ciation are recorded. He can produce a witness to his residence and char- 
acter, and can appear in person in the proper court, and be sworn there in 
open court, with his witness, as to the matters prescribed in the statute. 
When this is done, he can do nothing more except to receive such a certi- 
ficate from the court as that which Coleman received from the court—a cer~ 
tificate which sets forth that it is given ‘by the court,’ under its seal; that 
Coleman appeared in court on a day named, and applied to it to become a 


14 


citizen, and produced to it such evidence, and made such declaration and 
renunciation, and took such oaths, as are required by the acts of Congress 
on the subject; and that, thereupon, the court ordered that he be admitted, 
and he was accordingly admitted, by the court, to be a citizen of the United 
States. When he has done what the certificate says he has done, and 
when he leaves with the clerk of the court such papers as he has signed, 
and when the court tells him, as it does by the certificate, that, he having 
done all that, the court had thereupon ordered that he be admitted to be 
a citizen, and had admitted him to be a citizen, and when the court gives 
the certificate into his keeping, he has done all he can to comply with the 
statute. It cannot be held that the word ‘conditions’ applies to anything 
further. There must, undoubtedly, be an act of admission, but what shall 
be the evidence, directed by the court, of such act of admission, is another 
question. The provision for recording ‘proceedings,’ at the close of the 
second condition, and the provision for recording the renunciation men- 
tioned in the fourth condition, are introduced in such form that they may 
very well be regarded as merely directory, and as no part of the ‘condi- 
tions.’ The conditions are well satisfied by limiting them to what the appli- 
cant is required to do, in the first, second and fourth paragraphs, and to 
what the court is required to do, in the third paragraph. The admission to 
citizenship is to follow the observance of those conditions. The recording 
is to follow the admission and not precede it. The admission separates 
the conditions from the recording.” 

By the law of this decision and the law of common sense, Cannon 
having beendeclared a citizen by the court, stood a citizen, and no record or 
want of record, could change his status or his rights or take from him any 
of the privileges or consequences which follow citizenship. But we are 
challenged as to the kind of evidence necessary to show the act of admis- 
sion. If no record, whatever, has been kept, as Campbell’s pamphlet 
affirms, parol evidence may always be resorted to either to establish the 
record proceedings, or for the purpose of making a new entry of the 
record. 

Rhoads v. Commonwealth, 15 Penn. St., 272. 

Ruggs v. Parker, 7 Gray, 172. 

Matheson v. Gant, 2 How., U. S., 263. 

Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H., 508. 

We have, in addition to the record, the testimony of the only living 
witness outside of Cannon himself, the venerable Elias Smith, Probate 
Judge of Salt Lake County, respected by Gentile, Jew, and ‘‘Mormon” 
alike; he swears tothe actual fact of the oath, the examination, the 
admission. He is contradicted by no one, and no effort is made to dispute 
the effect of testimony. As to the effect of the certificate, Judge Blatchford 
in the case above cited uses this language: 


15 


‘‘As said before, there must be an act of admission by the court. But 
the court has a right to say what it will regard as its act of admission, and 
it has a right to say what it will regard as its order that the applicant be 
admitted, and what it will regard as his admission. Whatever the court 
says is its act of admission, and whatever the court says is its order of 
admission, is such act and such order, whenever the question is brought 
up in a collateral proceeding, such as is the present proceeding, 
provided there is sufficient to reasonably amount to such act and such 
order. Here, the Superior Court has said to Coleman, by the certificate, 
that he has complied with all the requirements of the statute, and that it 
has made an order thereupon that he be admitted to be a citizen.” 

Judge Freedman decided that in such case, the certificate was all the 
evidence needed. 

In Re Christian, 56 How., P. R. 

What pretence does Campbell set forth for attacking or doubting the 
facts by which Cannon’s citizenship is proven? 

1. He says that at some other time in some other contest (which, by the 
way, was the contest by Baskin in the Forty-fourth Congress, where the 
committee decided in favor of Cannon’s citizenship), a man by the name 
of Jarman testified that he (himself), had a fraudulent certificate of naturali- 
zation. Whatofit? Because one man isa rascal, are all men villains? 
Does it follow that because Jarman was not legally naturalized that there 
were no honest men in the United States or in Utah? By the logic of 
Campbell’s attorney: because Guiteau killed Garfield, every man in the 
United States killed him, and Cannon or Campbell could be convicted of 
that crime, at the pleasure of the logician; and itis upon such reasoning 
that the whole cause of Mr. Campbell depends. And this deposition of 
Jarman is the only fraudulent certificate that even counsel can remem- 
ber in the whole history of Utah. I say this because it is the only instance 
he can cite, and for that, he goes outside of the case and introduces this 
testimony which he could not duplicate in this case. Not only was 
this testimony not taken in this case, but it does not even refer to the 
doings of the same clerk. Cannon’s certificate was signed by Appleby; 
when Jarman was naturalized, fourteen years later, Lynch was clerk and 
issued the certificate. Noone in 1881 could be found to testify to any 
fraudulent certificate. 


2. We find in Campbell’s apology, an ingenious piece of hypercriticism 
on the wording of the certificate—we are gravely assured that when it is 
recited that a man has sworn “‘to renounce,” he does not renounce, but 
merely promises to do so in the future. Such puerilities may amuse the 
mind of the proverbially ‘‘cunning” counsel of Campbell, but they cannot 
enlighten honest men who are seeking to find and determine the rights of 
persons whojhave applied to be citizens, conformed to all [the conditions, and 


16 


taken the oath the clerk of the court administered to them. The recitals 
in any document, certificate or judgment, do not constitute any essential 
or inherent part of its validity. 

In Re McCoupin, 5 Sawyer, 631. 

Judge Field, of the Supreme Court of the United States, uses this 
language: 

‘‘The record of naturalization in his case is perfect, and the judgment 
valid. Its validity and efficiency, are inno respect impaired by the inaccurate 
statement in the recitals respecting the three years residence in the United 
States of the applicant previous to his attaining the age of twenty-one. 
The recitals constitute no part of the judgment, and whether correct or 
otherwise, is immaterial. The court was satisfied at the time of the suffi- 
ciency of the evidence presented to justify the admission of the applicant, 
and pronounced its judgment accordingly.” 

At page 15 of the argument for Campbell, his advocate makes a sum- 
mary of the points against Cannon’s citizenship. Each one of these is 
untrue in fact, and we use the same summary, the same order, and the same 
points exactly reversed. 

1. There is a “fecord” of the court preserved in two forms. (a.) On 
the books, as ordered by the court. (%.) In the certificate duly signed, 
sealed, and delivered to Cannon. 

2. Parol proof is always allowable to establish a judgment whenever 
it has been irregularly or defectively recorded, or its jurisdiction has been 
denied. 

Freeman on Judgments, 273, and cases cited supra. 

3. There was no fraud in the action of the court admitting Cannon 
to citizenship. No witness has attempted to impeach the integrity or 
standing of the judge who presided over the court. Cannon was entitled 
to be made a citizen. His home being here, he had the right to go abroad 
for the purpose of attending to business, and yet keep his home in the 
United States. 

4. Campbell says: ‘‘Accept every fact in Cannon’s certificate as true.’ 
He certainly has disputed none of them; every fact is true, but the one all 
important fact is the decision of the court, which no other court, tribunal, 
or body of men can ever set ee or impeach collaterally, “‘“AND THERE- 
UPON THE COURT = : ADMITTED HIM TO BE A CITIZEN;” 
that flat went forth in 1854, and no power in the United States can ever 
change, reverse or alter its effect, 

Campbell’s advocate attempts, by a logic peculiar to himself, to show 
that the woman suffrage act of Utah elected Campbell and defeated Can- 
non. He claims that, illegal votes being cast, the good not being dis- 
tinguishable from the bad, the whole vote for Cannon must be thrown out, 
and the vote for Campbell preserved! Why not throw out the vote for 


{7 


Campbell aiso? In the Beaver contest, which he cites as authority, it 
appears by his showing that the vote for both sides was excluded quite: 
**The Mormon returning officers held that those illegal votes vitiated 
the extire poll.” 
Argument for Campbell, p. 20. 


If the “‘entire poll” of votes in Utah is vitiated, what becomes of 
Campbell, his 1,357 votes, and his seat?) Does Campbell pretend, in either 
notice, protest, answer or testimony, that no females voted for him? Not 
a word of it. He asks Congress or the public to imagine and presume that 
no females voted for him. The fact is notorious that he received a large 
percentage of female votes. Day after day, before the election, the news- 
paper of the conspirators, acting in his interest—the Salt Lake Tribune— 
called on the women of Utah to vote for Allen G. Campbell as their 
“champion.” In what regard he was their champion is not shown, but is 
perhaps hinted in the cross-examinationof one of their witnesses. Many 
women did vote tor him, and he has not dared to prove or attempt to prove 
that any women voted for Cannon; although in his ‘‘answer” he alleged and 
gave notice that he would prove that votes were cast for Cannon by 
females. He could spread on paper the braggart trumpet of what he 
would do, and yet no testimony could he bring to back his boast. The 
burden was on him. Whydid he not prove it? We ‘can answer. He 
knew too well that Cannon could prove that a greater per cent. of votes 
by females was cast for Campbell than for Cannon. He could make the 
charge but dared not face the facts. 

The question of the validity of the Woman Suffrage Act does not 
properly belong to this discussion, as it has no direct bearing on the case, 
not having been tested judicially. But so many falsehoods have been told 
concerning the tenor and effect of the law that we will briefly consider it. 
The Campbell pamphlet claims (p. 21) that this act requires neither citi- 
zenship, residence nor majority. But the act clearly provides that every 
woman, in order to be qualified to vote, must be, first, of the age of twenty- 
one years; second, have resided in the. Territory six months next preced- 
ing the election; third, be either born or naturalized in the United States, 
or the wife, widow or daughter of a citizen. This is as plain as language 
can make it. It follows, therefore, that a woman under twenty-one years 
of age cannot vote in the Territory even if she possesses the other 
requisite qualifications; also that a woman who is of the age of twenty-one 
years and possesses the third qualification, cannot vote unless she has 
resided in the Territory six months next preceding the election. 

The principle involved in the provision concerning the wife, widow or 
daughter of a citizen is that contained in the statutes of the United States, 
which makes citizens of the children of citizens, and also of the wives and 

3 


lad 


LS 


widows of citizens without going through the same forms as male aliens in 
obtaining naturalization papers. 

The Registration Act of 1878 provides that all citizens must be regis- 
tered before they can vote, and both male and female voters are required 
to take a certain oath, which is in form as follows: 

74 hp ——, being duly sworn, depose and say, that I am over 
twenty-one years of age and have resided in the Territory of Utah for six 
months and in the precinct of one month next preceding the date 
hereof, and (if 2 male) am a ‘native born’ or ‘naturalized’ (as the case may 
be) citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer in this Territory; (or if a 
female) I am ‘native born’ or ‘naturalized,’ or the ‘wife,’ ‘widow,’ or ‘dauch- 
ter’ (as the case may be) of a native born or naturalized citizen of the 
United States. 

‘Subscribed and sworn to before me this —— day of —~— A. D. 18—. 


Assessor.” 

All female citizens as well as males must, in order to vote, swear first, 
that they are over twenty-one years of age; second, that they have resided 
in the Territory six months and in the precinct one month next preceding 
the date of registration; and, third, that they are native born or naturalized 
citizens—in the case of females they may be either native born or natural- 
ized, or the wife, widow or daughter of a native born or naturalized citizen. 
Observe, each women voter must swear, not only that she is a citizen, or 
the wife, widow or daughter of a citizen, but that she is over twenty-one 
years of age, and that she has resided six months in the Territory, and one 
month in the precinct immediately before the time of the taking of the oath. 

Campbell boasts that he “represents the free people of Utah,” who 
“are bringing schools and civilization into this priest-ridden and crime- 
stained Territory.” Are the schools they bring represented in the logic of 
Campbell’s advocate or apologist? Logic that says that because votes 
were cast by females they are all presumed to be such, and all cast for 
Cannon; that declares, because one certificate is illegal, all are illegal; 
that because an illegal election was held for sheriff in Beaver County, 
Utah, there can be no legal elections in America? 

‘Free people” does he call the voters for Campbell? Is it “free” to 
conspire to thrust into Congress one who has: not been elected? Is it 
“free” to rob or try to rob 18,568 people of their suffrage and give it 
to 1,357? It is entirely too “free” for constitutional, law-abiding 
governments. Is it “civilization” for the Governor to certify that Campbell 
was elected when he knew he was not? The less the better of such civili- 
zation. Freedom to rob and despoil others of their rights! Freedom to 
falsify election returns, and avoid prosecution by technical subterfuges, is a 
kind of freedom not submitted to by the people of the United States. 


19 


On the 8th day of June, 1881, a complaint in the nature of a bill in 
equity was filed in the District Court at Salt Lake, entitled the United 
States, Hx vel. Allen G. Campbell v. George Q. Cannon. 

The object of the suit seemed to be, First; to enjoin Cannon from 
drawing his salary as Delegate to Congress. Second, to deelare void the 
certificate of naturalization. Third, to obtaina decree that Cannon was 
not eligible to Congress. The complaint was signed by Sutherland & Mc- 
Bride and P. T. Van Zile as attorneys for plaintiff; it will be found in the 
appendix. 

The court had no jurisdiction of such complaint because the direct 
effect and probably the sole object was to have the court decide for the 
House that Cannon had no right to sit as a member of the House of Rep- 
presentatives. A motion was made to dissolve the temporary injunction. 
The motion was granted. Cannon continues to receive the pecuniary ben- 
efit of the enrollment. A demurrer was interposed to the form and objects 
of the suit, but mainly to the jurisdiction of the court to take from Con- 
gress the determination of questions involved. 

1. No suit can be maintained to annul a grant existing by Act of Con- 
gress except the Attorney-General of the United States appear as relator 
or the United States as plaintiff. 

United States v. Throckmorton, 8 Otto, p. 70. 

2. Campbell did not allege in the complaint that he was elected, but 
merely that he hadacertificate. The fair presumption from reading the com- 
plaint would be—everything being most strongly construed against the 
pleader, according to the rules of pleading—that Cannon was elected and 
was occupying and fulfilling theduties of the office, in short, the Delegate de 
jure and de facto; Campbell then had no interest in the controversy and 
could not be relator. 

3. The pretended frauds set forth were not such as a court of equity 
will ever in any case take cognizance of; equity never sets aside judgments 
on account of mistakes of law, so if the court mistook the effect of Can- 
non’s residence, it was no ground for setting aside the certificate of natu- 
ralization. Courts of equity do not set aside judgments rendered upon 
untrue testimony. (See opinion of Judge Shaw in Greene v. Greene, 2 
Gray, 361; where this branch of the law is elaborately reviewed.) 

4. The court of chancery cannot try title to any office. 

1 High on Injunction, Secs. 1256-1312, 1314, 1315. 

5. The Clerk of the House had exclusive jurisdiction to enroll the 
members of the House, and the District Court can have no jurisdiction to 
review that action. 

6. By the Constitution of the United States, the House of Representa- 

s is the exclusive judge of the election and qualification of its own 
members. It is a gross usurpation for any court to attempt to determine 
either the election or qualifications for the House. 


20 


These were some of the reasons laid before the judge of the District 
Court why the demurrer should be sustained and the complaint dismissed. 

The judge presiding, John A. Hunter, did sustain the demurrer and 
dismiss the complaint. He rendercd his opinion, however, in the absence 
of the attorney for Mr. Cannon, and then allowed Jabez G. Sutherland, 
attorney for “plaintiff,” the same who also took testimony for Cannon in the 
Fourty-fourth Congress to draw the order in his, Sutherland’s handwriting, 
in which condition it now stands. Sutherland put into that. order some: 
remarkable language for any court to hold in sustaining a demurrer. This 
probably is the first case in the history of jurisprudence, where a court at 
once determines that he has no power to proceed to determine the case, 
and at the same time renders a decree in favor of plaintiff. 

Among lawyers three would be need of little to be said of the ridiculous 
features of this order; not does it in itself have any effect; but immediately 
upon the filing of the order the agents of the conspiracy telegraphed to all 
the newspapers of the country that Judge Hunter had decided the naturaliza- 
tion of Cannon fraudulent; and solemn essays and articles appeared on 
the merits and effects of such decision, as if the decision had been 
rendered on final decree, after a hearing of the facts. 

That a demurrer admits nothing except for the purpose of the argu- 
ment of the demurrer, and cannot be used in any collateral or other pro- 
ceeding, is abundantly proven by the following extracts from prominent 
authority. In the case of the Commercial Bank of Manchester v. H. S. 
Buckner, appealed from the Circuit Court of Louisiana to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, Justice Wayne, in rendering the decision, 
said: 

“It was frequently urged in the argument by the counsel for complain- 
ants, that the demurrer of the defendant was a confession of the frauds 
alleged in the bill, and that, theiefore, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to 
give relief. 

‘Our view of that demurrer is different. It is only a confession of 
facts well pleaded, but in this bill none were so; the power of the court to 
give relief, and of the complainants to bring a suit, either at law or in 
equity, for the original debt which they had proved in bankruptcy, having 
been mistaken.”’ 

20 Howard, p. 314. 

That the facts in this case were not wel? pleaded is proven by the dis- 
missal of the whole case, including both facts and legal propositions. In 
1 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 551, we find the following: 

“But a demurrex in chancery does not admit the fact charged ia the 
bill; for if it be overruled, the defendant may still answer. So it is as to 
pleas in chancery; these as well as demurrers, being merely hypotheti- 
cal statements that, supposing the facts to be as alleged, the defendant is 

not bound to answer,” 


re 

Other authorities, notably 9 Barbour, page 301, might be cited showing 
that Judge Hunter not only made assertions against the facts, but contrary 
to plain and simple principles of law. 

Chitty on pleadings, says: 

“The common doctrine that a demurrer admits the facts stated as the 
pleading, must be understood with this gualzfication that it zs only upon 
his argument.” 

‘‘A demurrer presents only an issue in law to the court for considera- 
tion; the jury have no concern with it; and although it is a rule of plead- 
ing, that a demurrer admits facts well pleaded for the sole purpose of 
determining their legal sufficiency, yet as arule of evidence, that it never 
was supposed the demurrer admitted anything.” 

Pease v; Phelps, 10 Conn!, 68. 

See also, Stinson v. Gardiner, 34 Me., 74. 

That a demurrer well taken should have an effect against the party 
demurring, greater than if not well taken, is preposterous; for, by the 
practice of the courts in Utah as elsewhere, if a demurrer is overruled, the 
defendant has an opportunity to deny the facts of the complaint, and try this 
issue, before any decree can be obtained by the plaintiff. Under all the 
circumstances, the interpolation into the order of the language imputed 
to the court was the grossest and gravest of frauds, whether done by 
one of the original conspirators or by the mistake of the judge himself. 

Evidently aware of the weakness ot their legal position, the promoters 
of the scheme to make 1,357 votes count more than 18,568, attempt to 
fortify it by a breastwork of unsupported calumnies. Failing to make out 
a case that will bear the scrutiny of dispassionate judgment, they think to 
divert criticism by enlisting prejudice and arousing passion. Theruse, we 
doubt not, will be perceived and will fail of its purpose. But lest the 
assertion made about ‘‘Mormon”’ Church influence might be taken by those 
unfamiliar with the facts as probably correct, it will be necessary to notice 
the closing paragraph of the disingenuous presentation of the case of 
Mr. Campbell. 

It is alleged that ‘the church vote in Utah isin no sense an expression 
of the will of the voters;” that the ‘‘Twelve Apostles declare who shall 
be candidates and who shall be voted for,” by ‘‘edicts that are as absolute 
with the masses as those of a Russian Czar;” that ‘‘a free vote in Utah 
does not exist and never has existed.” The term “church vote” to begin 
with isa misnomer. Elections in Utah are not conducted by church voting 
any more than in other parts of the country. They are regulated by 
statutory laws which render them fair and free to all citizens with the 
proper qualifications. There are two parties in Utah, one called the 
People’s Party, the other the Liberal Party. The former is composed of 
the great majority of the citizens, The strength of the latter is exhibited 


22 


in the vote cast for Mr. Campbell. The People’s Party has its territoria] 
and county committees chosen at regularly called conventions. Primaries 
and other political gatherings assemble and are conducted on similar 
general principles to those of the great political parties of the country. 
They are as distinct from the “Mormon” Church organization as the 
Democratic machinery is from the Catholic Church, or the Republican 
from the Methodist Church. Advantage is sought to be taken by the 
special pleaders for Mr. Campbell, of the coincident Church Conference 
and Territorial Convention in October of 1880. When it is understood 
that delegates are selected in the various counties, reaching as far as from 
twenty to over three hundred miles from Salt Lake City, much of it out- 
side of railroad connection, the convenience of holding the Territorial 
Convention at a time when a general gathering of the people took place at 
the Territorial Capital will be readily perceived. But if the edict of twelve 
men is absolute and all that is necessary, why should the people elect com- 
miltees to call meetings, and why should they take the trouble to go 
through the forms and labors of ward primaries, county conventions and 
territorial assemblies, when ‘‘the duty to vote a ticket determined by the 
Church is unquestioned?” 

The instances cited as proof that there is no free voting in Utah, and 
that twelve Church officials exercise absolute power for Church purposes, 
are most singularly chosen. The case of Judge Kinney shows that a non- 
‘“Mormon” was elected as Delegate to Congress; and the case of Bishop 
Woolley proves that the people who cannot vote “‘except as the absolute edict 
of the Twelve commands,” elected Woolley, when another man was “‘placed 
on the ticket by order of those Church authorities.” Thus, the people 
were “‘ordered”’ to vote for Clinton, but instead, elected Woolley; and this 
proves that ‘‘the duty of a ‘Mormon’ to vote the ticket determined upon by 
the Church is unquestioned,” and that “a free vote in Utah has never ex- 
isted! "—g. e. d. 

The assumption that the elected candidate was ordered to decline the 
office is as gratuitous as the assertion about the edicts of the Twelve 
Apostles. No order, decree, instruction or advice of the kind is quoted; 
it cannot be because none exists, even in the imagination of those who 
make the charge; they know better or they must be oblivious indeed to the 
plain and indisputable facts. But the conclusion arrived at after all these 
groundless assertions is most amusing. Because the 18,000 who voted for 
Mr. Cannon were ordered to do so, therefore 1,300 voted for Mr. Camp- 
bell as their free choice. And this is the reasoning of legal minds! Sup- 
posing the Cannon votes to have been forced, that would not prove that 
the Campbell votes were free. And coming down to facts, it could be 
shown, if it was worth while, that the so-called ‘Liberal’ votes are far 
-‘more open to the charge of coercion than those for the People’s ticket. 


yd 


The non-‘*Mormons” previous to the election were visited, lectured, urged, 
stormed and threatened by officials and others who took the stump for Mr. 
Campbell, and many of their incendiary and intimidating harangues are on 
record. 

There is one fact which of itself refutes all the rash assertions about 
Church dictation. and the lack of freedom at elections in Utah; and that is, 
the perfect secrecy of the ballot. It is impossible, under the law, to tell 
how any person votes at a Utah election. The ballot is placed in an en- 
velope; all the envelopes are uniform; no mark or device of any kind is 
permitted to be placed upon them: the voter can vote for whom he pleases, 
and no one can discover his secret unless he pleases to disclose it. There- 
fore, no matter who might dictate, the voter is protected in his freedom of 
action. 

And then consider the motto quoted by these ‘‘Liberal’’ logicians—or 
as they call it, the platform—adopted by the Convention which nominated 
Mr. Cannon: 

“The highest possible liberty for man and woman!” 

Trulv a characteristic utterance for “‘serfs and slaves,’ is it not? But 
those wonderful reasoners endeavor by inuendo to hint at something in 
that motto, bearing peculiar significance, coupling it with a baseless charge 
about polygamy. Such a low insinuation is indicative of a prurient mind, 
and is worthy of persons who make assertions concerning the marriage re- 
lations of a body of men, most of whom, coming from distant places, were 
perfect strangers to them, and of whose domestic affairs they were neces- 
sarily in the most profound ignorance. 

An isolated passage from Mr. Cannon’s letter of acceptance is seized 
and distorted from its evident meaning. But the Delegate in that letter re- 
cognizes the,geop/e as the nominating power, their desires being expressed 
through their representatives in the Convention. Itis the people whose 
wishes he announces himself determined to do all in his power to meet; it 
is the people's interests that he intends to watch; itis the duties which 
the people impose upon him that he promises to discharge with zeal 
and fidelity. What more can be asked of any nominee of any 
party in any part of the Union? And how much does this look 
like the language of one elected by the mere dicta of a dozen 
men? On the same principle by which Mr. Cannon’s words are 
wrested to refer only to the persons who nominated him, the letters of 
acceptance from every prominent man in the country could be twisted 
to apply to a faction. 

The eulogy upon the handful of voters who cast their ballots for Mr. 
Campbell will be valued at its worth. They were chiefly the denizens of 
the mining camps. They do not include one-half of the respectable 
and educated non-‘*Mormons” of Utah, who are in no sense represented by 


24 


that gentleman. The Territory had schools, business, energy, enterprise 
and all the elements of true civilization, before the class representedin Mr. 
Campbell’s vote came into it with the kind of civilization which is exhibit- 
ed by saloons and gambling dens, houses of intamy, brawls, riot and law- 
lessness. Unwittingly the advocates and supporters of these things admit 
the evil of their cause. They speak of the ‘‘Mormon” people plodding 
along ‘‘under orders to keep their garments unspotted from Babylon, Jde- 
cause its principles are at war with free thought and republican govern- 
ment.’ Weadmit that the people are under advice of this kind, and for 
the reasons named. This “Babylon” which Mr. Campbell’s legal advisers 
praise and uphold, is indeed opposed to free thought and republican gov- 
ernment. It would stifle the thought and speech of ‘“‘Mormon” devotees 
because their faith differs from orthodoxy. It seeks to subvert republican 
government in the Territory by rendering null and void the ballots of al- 
most the entire voting population. It would make the zfse dixit of one 
man, appointed by arbitrary power, more potent than the votes of nearly 
nineteen thousand citizens. It would overturn the republican principle 
that ‘“‘the majority rules” and give control to a very small and indeed in- 
significant minority. 

To crown the folly and inconsistency of their whole case the advocates 
of the minority candidate, after laboring desperately to throw blame on 
Mr. Cannon for acknowledging his nomination by a part of the people, 
“Insist” upon the duty of an American Congressman, not to judge impar- 
tially, not to regard the votes and rights of the majority, not to ‘‘serve the 
whole people as one,” but to “help his own friends,” they being, 
under the towering egotism of these legal sophists, themselves and the 
small sprinkling of supporters of Mr. Campbell. 

We appeal to American Congressmen to avoid all prejudice; to disre- 
gard the calumnies and insinuations dragged into this case for unworthy 
objects; to deal out the same evenhanded justice to a ““Mormon” Delegate 
as to a “Gentile” Representative; to put their feet on the usurpation of a 
petty official who has attempted to assume their august functions; to recog- 
nize the inalienable rights of the majority; to preserve the sanctily of the 
ballot’ box; to protect naturalized citizens who in good faith have complied 
with the forms of law, from the strained technicalities of defeated parti- 
zans; and to stand as the representatives of popular suffrage and the prin- 
ciples of constitutional liberty and law, unmoved by any considerations 
than regard for right, the claims of duty and the dictates of enlightened 
conscience. 


DECLARATION OF RESULT OF ELECTION BY AND 
LERTIFICATE OF GOVERNOR MURRAY. 


On the fourteenth day of Decembes, 1880, the Secretary of the Territory, 
in my presence, opened the returns received by mail, of an election for Dele- 
gate of the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, held on the 
‘Tuesday after the first Monday of November, of said year. 

The returns show that George Q. Cannon received 18,568 votes, and 
Allen G. Campbell received 1,357 votes. At that time notice of protest by 
Allen G. Campbell, was given, which protest was afterwards filed, objecting 
to a certificate being issued to Mr. Cannon. Following is the protest: 


To His Excellency, Eli H. Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah: 


The time will soon arrive for the final canvass, under your supervision, 
of the return of votes given at the late election, for Delegate to Congress 
from this Territory. 

Iam not ignorant of what the public generally know in respect to the 
voting at this election and its supposed result. On the surface the returns 
wi!l not show, probably, that a majority of the votes actually cast were given 
forme. But if it be true, as I insist it is, that all the votes not poled in my 
favor are legally blank, then I owe it to those who placed me in nomination, 
and by a still higher obligation to the whole community, in the interest of 
good government to protest, and I do protest against the counting of any 
votes for George Q. Cannon. 

The performance of the duty, however, would be productive of no result 
except to mortify and disgust legal voters whose’ choice is nnllitied, unless 
there is a power conferred on you to so conduct this canvass that legal 
voters shall only be included. 

If it were a matter of indifference whether the names voted for as candi- 
dates represented actual persons or mere mythical characters—persons 
qualified or persons ineligible—if it were immaterial to discriminate between 
the votes given by those entitled to exercise the elective franchise and those 
given by persons whom the law excludes on the ground of sex, minority, or 
alienage from the privilege of voting, then a mere count of votes and com- 
parison of aggregates would decide to wkom your certificate of election 
should be given. If it is not, however, consonant to the American theory of 
popular elections to office, to ignore such disqualification nor to confer such 
limited powers upon those charged with the duty to ascertain the result, 
then there can be no elimination of votes illegally received. 

Tt cannot be said that the laws have so imperfectly guarded the ballot 
box and provided for pure and regular elections, that if illegal votes are 
once received by some error of judgment or failure of duty by officers re- 
gistering voters or having the immediate control of elections, the wrong is 
forever incapable of rectification. 

No remedy is adequate or effective in respect to offices for short terms, 
which does not administer the corrective during the canvass, for before any 
other remedy can be sought and applied, the motive to pursue it ceases, by 


SF | 


the expiration of the term, the wrong prospers and the authors are thereby 
encouraged to repeat it and generally do. 

This ysubje ct has such local importance that I venture some suggestions 
in support of your powers in the premises, at the risk of incurring your 
criticism for assuming to defend the executive jurisdiction. 

Section 25 of the Utah Compiled 1.aws s provide: “That so soon as all the 
returns are received, the Secretary, in the presence of the Governer, shall 
unseal and examine them, and furnish to each person having the highest 
number of votes for any Territorial office a certificate of his election.’’ The 
returns here spoken of are: A brief abstract of the offices and naines voted 
for, and the number of votes each person receives. 

By Sees. 23 and 24 it will be observed that the duty imposed by See. 25, 
is to give the certificate to the person having the highest number of votes,and 
that it is not required by the terms of that section ‘that the highest number 
of votes shall be determined from tye returns. The duty to examine the 
returns, and that to give a certificate, are successive and distinct duties. 
The returns from certain counties, or the vote of certain precincts, may have 
to be rejected, for causes appx urent on the face of the returns, or other 
evidence may ‘afford grounds tor such rejection. 

The direction to you and the Secretary as final canvassers, is to issue the 

certificate to the person having the highest number of votes; therefore, 
since the mode of ascertaining “the important fact is not prescribed, and 
since on general principles, w hena general duty is required to be peformed, 
there is conferred by necessary implication the incidental power to adopt 
any suitable means necessary to the doing of that duty, evidence may be 
received in connection with the returns, to assist in coming to a correct con- 
clusion, This construction of the statute harmonizes your functions in re- 
spect to this office with those of similar offices generally. 

In Cushing’s Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, page 52, the 
author quotes from another: ‘There can “be no doubt that in those branches 
wherein the law has marked out a definite line, it is ministerial; but as re- 
gards the two material branches of deciding upon the capacity or incapacity 
of candidates, or upon the qualifications or " disqualifications of electors, the 
subject requires some investigation; but if the returning officer (you are 
clearly one) be fully apprised of some notorious disqualification, whether of 
a candidate or of an elector, such as their being minors, or claiming in the 

right of property, which clearly does not entitle them to the privilege, he is 
so far a judicial officer as to prevent their voting or being returned,” and the 
author adds: ‘*In judicial decisions of this country, when the point is ad- 
verted to, it seems to be considered, that the functions of returning officers 
are chiefly judicial in their character.”’ 

If so, it follows of course, in the absence of a legislative rule to the 
contrary, that you are to act upon evidence, and on any evidence which 
applies to tke subject, and would be competent before any other judicial 
tribunal having the same question to decide. 

I shall, in accordance with these views, address this, my protest to you, 
as a quasi judicial officer, protest against the issue of any certificate of elec- 
tion to George Q. Cannon, and I demand the issue of one to myself, because 
he has not, and I have, the highest number of votes for the office of Delegate 
to Congress of the United States, on the following grounds: 

First—It will appear by the returns to the Secretary that 1,357 votes were 
given for me for said office, and there is no evidence pending to gainsay my 
qualifications for the office, or those of the electors voting for me. 

Second—George Q. Cannon is an unnaturalized alien. Being such he | is 
not eligibie to the office; all the votes given for him are void. I quote from 
the author before referred to: ‘If an election is made of a person who is 
ineligible, that is incapable of being elected, the election of such person is 
absolutely void; even though he is voted for at the same time with others 
who are eligible, and who are accordingly elected, and this is equally true 


\ 
My 


Til 


whether the disability is known to the elector or not; whether a majority of 
all the votes, ora plurality only, is necessary to the election, and whether 
the votes, are given orally or by ballot.’’ (Id. p. 66,) According to this 
authority and the authority which he cites, it is the law in this country, and 
also in England, that not only will the election of a disqualified person be 
held as void, but if such election takes place after notice of the disqualifica- 
tion is given to the electors, the candidate having the next highest number 
of votes will be elected. (Id. pp. 66, 67.) 

Notice of Mr. Cannon’s disqualification has been very thoroughly pub- 
lished in this Territory before the election. 

This legal objection of alienage derives great force from the political and 
moral aspect of his life and conduct. George Q. Cannon isa polygamist, hav - 
ing lived for many years, and is still living with four women as wives, in 
violation of the law. He openly adv ocates polygamy in his public ad- 
dresses in Utah, and thus incites others to break the law enacted by Con- 
vress on that subject in harmony with the morai sentiments of the civilized. 
world. Not only is he not naturalized, but he is not qualified to be natural- 
ized; without thorough reconstruction he could not be proven to be a man 
of good moral character, nor could he, while in his present criminal contu- 
macy, sincerely make oath that he is; ‘Attached to the-Constitution of the 
United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the 
same.’’ 

Third—Under void legislation of this Territory, females have voted in 
large numbers; they are partisans of said Cannon, ‘and it must be taken for 
vranted that they voted for him at the late election. Calculating the present 
number of votes in this T erritory by adding to the vote given six years ago, 
(about 27,000), according to the ratio of popular increase from 1870 to 1880, as 
shown Hy the census returns, there were at least 40,000 de facto voters in the 
‘Territory when the last election took place. ‘The entire vote polled at this 
election, including the vote of females, was less than 20,000; therefore at 
least 20,000 voters stayed at home, and less than half the total vote was actu- 
ally polled and returned. 

The females in this Territory claiming the right to vote, outnumber the 
males having the right; the poll lists show also that they outstrip the males 
in voting. Thus it Will be seen that there are more females in this Territor AY 
claiming the right to vote than the whole number of votes polled at the late 
election. ' As these votes are illegal, how can you avoid the conclusion that 
they have vitiated the election, by rendering it impossible to determine 
without proof, that the pretended majority reported for Mr. Cannon does 
not consist of such votes. ‘The fact that there was such an enormous illegal 
vote, known as certain te be polled wil account for the absence of so many 
legal voters from the polls. 

That the act of the Territorial Legislature purporting to establish female 
suffrage is void, is now generaly conceded. It is so because it attempts to 
confer the privilege »y a special act on different and easier terins of qualifi- 
tion than those required by existing general law applicable to the other sex, 
thus violating the rule of uniformity. 

In conclusion, be it understood that I protest against the issuance of any 
certificate to George Q. Cannon as the substantive matter and purpose of 
this paper; and it seems clear beyond all controversy, that if he is ot quali- 
tied to hold the offlce, that no majority of legal votes can be said to have 
been given for him, and that it is within your power, for these causes, to 
witbhold the certificate of election. 

On reaching this conclusion as a secondary matter, I trust you will find 
it consistent with your views, and in the line of duty to hold that the votes 
viven for me, entitle me to the certificate. 

With great respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant. 


ALLEN G. CAMPBELL. 
Frisco, Dec. 12th, 1880. 


Ly: 


CANNON’S ANSWER. 


The answer of Mr. Cannon to the protest of Mr. Campbell was filed be- 
fore me January 7, 1881, which answer is as follows: 


To His Excellency Eli H. Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah: 


Srr—In reply to the communication of Allen G. Campbell, Esq., in 
which he protests against the issue of a certificate of election to me as Dele- 
gate of the Territory of Utah inthe Forty-seventh Congress of the United 
States, and demands the issue of the certificate to himself, I re-pectfully 
submit the following statements: 

The grounds on which Mr. Campbell bases his protest and demand are: 

1. That as canvassing officers the Governor and Secretary have power 
to ‘‘go behind the returns,’’ and ascertain from extrinsic evidence the num- 
ber of votes legally cast for each candidate. 

2. That there is no evidence tending to disprove his qualifications for 
the office of Delegate to Congress. 

3. That there is no evidence tending to disprove the qualifications of 
the 1,367 electors who voted for him. 

4. That Iam an unnaturalized alien. 

5. That, being such, I am not eligible to the office of Delegate to Con- 
gress, and that my iueligibility resulting from alienage is aggravated by 
polygamy, which he thinks is incompatible with citizenship and inconsistent 
with an honest oath of allegience to the Constitution of the United States. 

6. That all of the 18,568 votes cast for me at the late election are therefore 
void and are to be excluded from the canvass. 

7. That as a consequence the certificate of election is to be delivered by 
the canvassers to him, and not to me. 

8. That the females in the Territory who elaimed the right to vote out~- 
numbered all the votes polled at the election. 

9. That it ‘‘must be taken for granted’’ that all votes cast by females 
were cast for me. ; 

10. That the Territorial legislation which extends the right of suffrage 
to females is void. 

11. That itis, therefor, imposible to determine, without proof, that the 
18,568 votes cast for me included more legal votes than the 1,357 votes cast 
for him. 

12. That the votes of the females have ‘‘vitiated the election.” 

With your Excellency’s permission, I will answer these several proposi- 
tions in their order. 

1. The process of reasoning by which Mr. Campbell reaches the conclu- 
sion that the Governor and Secretary, as canvassing officers, have power to 
‘‘oo behind the returns, and to ascertain from extrinsic proofs the number 
of votes cast for each candidate,’’ is first to be considered. He refers to the 
following provisions of the ‘‘Compiled Laws of Utah:’ 

‘23. Immediately upon receiving the electoral returns of any precinct, 
the County Clerk and Probate Judge, or, in his absence, one of the select- 

-men, Shall unseal the list and ballot box, and count and compare the votes 
with the names on the list, and make a brief abstract of the offices and 
names voted for, and the number of votes each person received; the hallot 
box shall then be returned and the vote and list preserved for reference in 
ease the election of any person shall be contested. 

24. Whenall the returns and abstracts are made the clerk shall forth- 
with make a general abstract and post it up in his office, and forward to the 
Secretary of the Territory a certified copy of the names of the persons voted 
for, and the number of votes each has received for Territorial offices, and 


vy 


furnish each person having the highest number of votes for county and 
precinct offices a certificate of his election. 

25. So soon as all the returns are received, the Secretary, in presence of 
the Governor, shall unseal and examine them, and furnish to each person 
having the highest number of votes for any Territorial office a certificaie of 
election.” ; 

He thinks that because these statutory provisions do not, in express 
terms, require the canvassers to give the certificate to the person shown by 
the returns to have the highest number of legal votes, they by implication 
do require them to give it to the person who, whatever the returns show, 
did in fact receive the highest number of legal votes; that this duty neces- 
sarily implies the power to employ suitable ineans to ascertain who received 
the highest number of legal votes; and that, therefore, the Governor and 
Secretary, as canvassers, have the right to resort to extraneous evidence to 
ascertain the real facts in this case. He seeks to fortify his conclusion by 
the following citation from page 52 of ‘‘Cushing’s Law and Practice of Leg- 
islative Assemblies.” 

‘There can be no doubt that in those branches wherein the law has 
marked out a definite line it is ministerial; but as regards the two material 
branches of deciding upon the capacity or incapacity of candidates, or upon 
the qualifications or disqualifications of electors, the subject requires 
seme investigation; but if the returning officer be fully apprised of some 
notorious disqualification, whether of a candidate or of an elector, such as 
their being minors or claiming in the right of property, which clearly does 
not entitle them to the privilege, he is so fara judicial officer as to prevent 
their voting or being returned. In judicial decisions of this country, when 
the point is adverted to, it seems to be considered that the functions of re- 
turning officers are chiefly judicial in their character.”’ 

I respectfully submit that each and every step in this reasoning is erron- 
eous, and that the conclusion reached is absolutely destitute of warrant in 
law. ‘The provisions of sections 23, 24 and 25 of the statutes of Utah confer 
upon the Governor and Secretary, as canvassing officers, no judicial power 
to ‘‘go behind the returns”’ for the purpose of ascertaing the number of votes 
cast for any candidate. It is made their duty to ascertain whom the returns 
show to have received the highest number of votes, and to give the certificate 
to him. The only judicial or quasi-judicial power vested in themfis to deter- 
mine whether the papers before them purporting to be returns are returns 
made in substantial conformity to the law. If they decide that the papers 
are such returns, they must embrace their showing in the official canvass. 
If they decide that they are not such returns, they must exclude them from 
the canvass. 

The precinct judges of electionsin this Territory make no returns be- 
yond the mere transmission to the county clerk of the sealed ballot box and 
list of electors. They are not precinct canvassers. Thev do not return to 
the county clerks the number of votes cast for each candidate. They only 
return the ballots and the poll lists. Upon the county clerks and probate 
judges, or selectmen, is imposed the duty of canvassing the votes, in the 
first instance, by counting the ballots, and comparing their number with the 
number of names on the poll lists, and preparing statements of the offices 
and names votes for, and the number of votes cast for each candidate. The 
votes and lists are not sent to the Secretary of the Territory, but remain in 
charge of the clerks. The law makes no provision for any inspection of the 
ballots or of the poll lists by the Governor or Secretary before their canvass 
is completed and the certificates delivered to the successful candidates. It 
places nothing before the Governor and Secretary, except a certified copy of 
the names of the persons voted for and the number of votes cast for each. 
If the law requires them not merely to ascertain the number of votes shown 
by the clerk's returns to have been received by each candidate,but the num- 
ber of votes shown by the ballots and poll lists, and by intrinsie proof, to 

2 


Ap? 


have been legally cast for each candidate—that is to say, not merely to can- 
vass the clerk’s returns, but to canvass the votes themselves and determine 
their legality—then the law is an outrage, not only on the Governor and 
Secretary, who are compelledto make “bricks without straw,’’ but on the 
sandidates whose rights are to be adjudicated by officers from whom the law 
deliberately withholds the means essential to correct adjudications. This 
would be a most scandalous condition of the territorial law if it really ex- 
isted. But such is not the law of Utah. 

The question now under consideration has been adjudicated many times 
by judicial and legislative tribunals in the United States, upon statutory 
provisions substantially like those embraced in Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the 
‘‘Laws of Utah.’’ It has never been decided in favor of Mr. Campbell. Mr. 
McCrary, in his law of Elections (Section 82), correctly states the rule estab- 
lished by the concurrent authority of these decisions to be, that the canvass- 
ers ‘‘must receive and count the votes as shown by the returns, and they 
cannot go behind the returns for any purpose; and this necessarily implies 
that when a paper is presented as a return, and there is a question as to 
whether it is a return or not, they must decide that question from what ap- 
pears upon the face of the paper itself.”’ 

Under statutory provisions similar to those of Utah, the Supreme Court 
of Missouri held that the powers of the canvassers were restricted to the 
detirmination of the result shown by the returns. The following is the pro- 
vision of the Missouri statute: 

“The Secretary of State, in the presence of the Governor, shall proceed 
to open the returns and to cast up the votes given for all candidates for any 
office, and shall give to the persons having the highest number of votes for 
members of Congress from each district, certificates of election under his 
hand with the seal of the State affixed thereto.”’ 

In State vs. Steers, 44 Mo., 224, the court held: 

‘“‘Here is no discretion given, no power to pass upon and adjudge 
whether votes are legal or illegal, but the simple ministerial duty to cast up 
and to award the certificate to the person having the highest number of 
votes.”’ 

The New York election law of April 17, 1822, provides that the inspector 
appointed for that purpose, 

‘‘Snall, in person, deliver to the said clerk at this offiee, or to his deputy, 
or to the keeper of said office, a true copy of the said statement of votes,’’ 
and thereupon the board of canvassers ‘‘shall proceed to calculate and ascer- 
tain the whole number of votes which shall be given at such election in the 
said county for the several persons who shall be voted for as Governor, 
Lieutenant Governor, Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the 
United States, orso many of the said offices as shall be voted for, and shall 
set down in writing the names of the several candidates so voted for at any 
such election for any of the offices aforesaid, and the number of votes in 
words written at full length which shall be given for any such candidates at 
any such election inthe said county, and shall certify the same to be a true 
copy of the votes given in said county.”’ 

In the case of The People vs Van Slyck, 4 Cow., 323, which was decided 
in February, 1825, under the foregoing statutory provision, the Court said: 

‘‘The duties of the canvassers are ministerial. They are required to attend 
at the clerk’s office and calculate and ascertain the whole number of votes ° 
given at any election, and certify the same to be a true canvass. This is not 
a judicial act, but merely ministerial. Tuey have no power to controvert 
the votes of the electors.”’ 

It is provided in section 25 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois (1856) that 
the clerk of the County Commissioners’ Court, taking to his assistance two 
justices of the peace of his county, 

‘Shall proceed to open the returns and make abstracts of the votes in the 
folowing manner: * * * And it shall be the duty of the said clerk of the 


Vat 


County Commissioners’ Court immediately to make out a certificate of elec- 
tion to each of the persons having the highest number of votes.’’ 

In the case of The People vs. Head, 25 I11., 327, the court held: 

“This contest, under our statute, is an original proceeding instituted by 
the contestant for the purpose of trying the legality of the election, and not 
of the canvass. It goes behind the canvass and purges the election itself. 
The court, in trving it. is not confined to the poll books as returned, but it 
can go behind these and inquire, by proof dehors, whether the votes, or any 
of them, were illegal. But the canvassers have no right to do this. Theirs 
isa mere mechanical, or rather, arithmetical duty. They may probably 
judge whether the returns are in due form, but, after that, they can only 
canvass the votes for the several candidates and declare the result.” 

Section 95, chapter V1, of Revised Statutes of Wisconsin (1849) is in these 
words: 

‘“‘Whenever it shall satisfactorily appear that any person has received a 
plurality of the legal votes cast at any election for any office, the canvassers 
shall give to such person a certificate of election, notw ithstanding the pro- 
visions of law may not have been fully complied with in noticing or con- 
ducting the election, or canvassing the returns of votes, so that the real will 
of the people may not be defeated by an informality.”’ 

Under this statute it was held by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in 
Attorney General vs. Barstow, 4 Wis., 775, as follows: 

‘‘Whether it would have been competent for the Legislature, under the 
Constitution which delegates all of the judicial power of the State to the 
courts of the State, to give to the board of State canvassers judicial authority 
to settle and adjudicate rights of this nature, it is not necessary to inquire. 
They have not given them any such power. Their duties are strictly minis- 
terial. They are to add up and ascertain by calculation the number of votes 
given for any office. They have no discretion to hear and take proof as to 
frauds, even if morally certain that monstrous frauds have been perpetrated. 
The ninety-tifth section of this statute gives them no such power.”’ 

The Revised Statutes of Michigan for 1846 (p. 51) contain the following 
provision: 

“The said board of canvassers, when formed as aforesaid, shall proceed 
to examine the stateinents received by the Secretary of State of the votes 
given in the several counties, and make a statement of the whole number of 
votes given for the office of Representative in each Congressionial district, 
which shall show the names of the persons to whom such votes shall have 
been given for said office, and the whole number of votes given to each. 
The said canvassers shall certify such statement to be correct, and subscribe 
their names thereto, and they shall thereupon determine what persons have 
been, by the greatest number of votes, duly elected to such offices, and 
make and subscribe on such statement a certificate of such determination, 
and deliver the same to the Secretarv of State.”’ 

Under this statutory provision the Supreme Court of the State, in the 
case of The People vs. Van Cleve, 1 Mich., 336, said: 

“Tn a republican government, where the exercise of official power is but 
a derivative from the people through the medium of the ballot, it would be 
a monstrous doctrine that would subject the publie will and the public voice 
thus expressed to be defeated by either the ignorance or the corruption of a 
‘board of canvassers. The duties of these boards are simply miuisterial. 
Their whole duty consists in ascertaining who are elected, and preserving 
‘tho evidences of such election.’’ 

It is provided on page 77 of the Revised Statutes of Maine for 1841, as 
follows: 

“The returns from each town and plantation shall be delivered into the 
office of the clerk of the county commissioners on or before the first day of 
the meeting of said commissioners next after the said month of September, 
to be by them opened and compared with the like returns from the several 


VITI 


towns and plantations in such county or registry district, and the person 
having a majority of the votes shall be declared registrar of deeds for said 
county or registry district.”’ 

The Supreme Court of Maine, in Bacon vs. York County Commissioners, 
26 Me., 498, a case which arose under this statute, held: 

“The cauvassers had no power to go beyond the returns of the selectmen 
and town clerks, and receive other evidence, and determine therefrom that 
the town meeting was not properly called, and for that cause reject the votes 
of that town.” 

In O’Ferrall vs. Colby, 2 Minn., 186, a case decided under similar statu- 
tory provisions, the court held: 

‘““‘We cannot, therefore, resist the conclusion that the duties of the clerk 
of the board of supervisors in receiving and opening election returns, in 
canvassing and estimating the votes, and in giving certificates of election, 
are purely ministerial, and that no judicial or discretionary powers are con- 
ferred upon him or the board of canvassers, except, perhaps, so far as to 
determine whether the returns are spurious or genuine, or polled at estab- 
lished precincts, and in ascertaining from the returns themselves for whom 
the votes were intended.”’ 

The Supreme Court of Indiana, undera similar statute, in the case of 
Brower vs. O’Brien, 2 Carter (Ind.,) 430, held: 

“With regard to this point, it may be observed that the duties of both 
the board of canvassers and the clerk in making the statement are purely 
ministerial. It is not within their‘provinee to consider any questions relat- 
ing to the validity of the election held or of the votes received by the parties 
voted for. They are simply to cast up the votes given for each person, from 
the proper election documents, and to declare the persons who, upon the 
face of these documents, appear to have received the highest number of votes 
given, duly elected to the offices voted for ”’ 

The paragraph quoted from Mr. Cushing’s work shows upon its face 
that the returning officer, who is said to be “so far a judicial officer as to 
prevent their voting or being returned,” is a judge of election as well as a 
returning officer. If Mr. Cushing refers to mere canvassers, his statement, 
that in the judicial decisions of this country their functions are held to be 
chiefly judicial, is an inexcusable blunder. 

2. Mr. Campbell’s next proposition is, that there is no evidence tending 
to impeach his qualifications for the office of Delegate to Congress. That 
the returns present no such evidence, is probable; and if the returns on their 
face disclose nothing to impeach his qualifications, it is quite immaterial to 
inquire now whether Mr. Campbell is or is not eligible to the office which 
he seeks. The House of Representatives is the only tribunal empowerd to 
adjudicate that question. If the Governor and Secretary find, from the re- 
turns, that he is elected, they must award the certificate to him, whatever 
proofs outside of the returns may or may not be attainable to impeach his 
eligibility before the House of Representatives. Such proofs cannot be used 
in this canvass. 

3. The same answer is to be made to the assertion that there is no evi- 
dence tending to impeach the qualifications of the 1,357 electors who voted 
for Mr. Campbell. Whatever evidence may exist on this point outside of 
the returns, it cannot be considered by the Governor or Secretary in this 
proceeding; it can only be considered by the House of Representatives of the 
United States. 

4. Mr. Campbell’s next assertion is, that 1am an unnaturalized foreign- 
er. This presents a question of fact upon which the returns to be canvassed 
by the Governor and Secretary probably furnish no evidence beyond the 
presumption, to be drawn from _ those returns, that the electors per- 
formed their duty according to law, and, therefore, that the candidates for 
whom they voted have all the legal qualifications for office whatever they 
may be. if there be any proofs attainable tendiug to overthrow this pre- 


) 


IX 


sumption and to show that Iain an unnaturalized foreigner, and therefore 
destitute of the necessary qualification of citizenship, it is obviously incom- 
petent for the canvassing board to go behind the returns and consider such 
proofs. The only tribunal which has power to do suin this case isthe House 
of Representatives of the United States. 

The difference between the duties of the precinct election officers and 
those of the canvassers is very great. The precinct election officers are 
judges of election. In the first instance it devolves upon them to judge of 
the qualifications of electors, in subordination to the provisions of law regu- 
lating their duties; but it never devolves upon any canvasser to judge of the 
qualifications of electors unless by virtue of express—and, I will add, most 
extraordinary and dangerous—statutory provisions. Only in a few excep- 
tional cases have any such indefensible provisions been made by statute in 
the United States. 

The House of Representatives is, by the Constitution, made the judge of 
the election, returns and qualifications of its members. ‘lhe power of the 
House does not exclude the power of the judges of election to act within 
their statutory authority as judges of the qualifications of electors; nor does it 
exclude the power of canvassers to act as judges of the returns presented to 
them to be canvassed, so far as to determine whether they are or are not re 
turns substantially conforming to the law. But it does not exclude the 
power of precinct officers to judge of the qualifications of candidates; and it 
excludes the power of canvassers to judge either of the qualifications of elec- 
tors, or of the qualifications of candidates. It also confers upon the House 
the power to decide on all points, including the qualifications of electors and 
the legal sufficiency of the precinct returns. 

LT respectfully submit, therefore, that the Governor and Secretary have 
no power to go behind the returns to ascertain whether I am or am not an 
unnaturalized foreigner. This disposes of the point. 

But then the fact is that on the seventh day of December, 1854, by a 
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, I was duly naturalized ac- 
cording to law, as Mr. Campbell well knows. 

In the case of Spratt vs. Spratt, 4 Pet., 393, Chief Justice Marshall said: 

“The various acts upon the subject submit the decision of the right of 
aliens to admission as citizens to courts of record. They are to receive 
testimony, to compare it with the law, and to judge upon both law and fact. 
This judgment is entered on record as the judgment of the court. It seems 
to us, if it be in legal form, to close all inquiry, and, like every other judg- 
ment, to be complete evidence of its own validity.” 

In Campbell ys. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176, the Supreme Court of the United 
States held: 

“Tt is true that this requisite (good moral character) to his admission is 
not stated in the certificate; but it is the opinion of this court that the court 
of Sufiolk must have been satisfied as to the character of the applicant, or 
otherwise a certificate that the oath prescribed by law had been taken would 
not have been granted. The oath, when taken, confers upon him the rights 
of a citizen, and amounts to a judgment of the court of his admission to 
those rights. It is, therefore, the unanimous opinion of the court that Wil- 
liam Currie was duly naturalized.” 

If, now, it were competent fer the House itself, in a contested case, to re- 
verse or vacate this judgment and to declare that I am an unnaturalized 
foreigner, it would not be competent for the Governor and Secretary, acting 
as canvassers, to do this. The notion that any jurisdiction to reverse or 

vacate that judgment for mistake or fraud, or on any other grounds, is 

vested in the canvassing officers in this case, is too preposterous to admit of 
any comment from me. But iu the case of Baskin vs. Cannon, in the Forty- 
fourth Congress, this precise objection to my eligibility was urged before 
the Committee of Elections of the House, and was overruled by the unani- 
mous vote of the committee, on the ground that the judgment of the First 
District Court of Utah on this point was conclusive, and I retained my seat 
in the House. 


x 


Not only is there no legal ground for a question of my eligibility by the 
Territorial canvassers, or even by the House of Representatives itself, based 
on the ground of alienage, but though such ineligibility could be a lawful 
ground rof action by the committee or the House, it would not, as Mr. Camp- 
bell supposes, be aggravated by polygamy, if that could also be added as a 
factor in the adjudication. For, in the case of Maxwell vs. Cannon, in the 
Forty-third Congress, Smith’s Digest, 188, if was unanimously held by the 
committee, with “the concurrence of the House, that the only qualifications 
or disqualifications of Delegates were those prescribed by the Constitution 
for Representatives, and that polygamy was not a disqualification for a seat 
in the House of Representatives of the United States. 

5. Mr. Campbell’s fifth proposition is that my alleged want of citizen- 
ship renders me ineligible to the office of Delegate in Congres. I concede, 
for the sake of the argument, that an unnaturalized foreigner ought to be 
ineligible to the office of Delegate from Utah, just as he is “ineligible to the 
office of Representative in Congress. I make this concession, not beeause [ 
am certain that the proposition “is founded in the Constitution or in the law, 
but because it seems to me to be founded in common sense. The Constitu- 
tion provides neither for the qualifications of the office of Delegate in Con- 
gress nor for the office itself. The law accords to every Territory the right 
to send a Delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States. 
(Rev. Stats., Sec. 1862). It prescribes the qualification of citizenship for the 
Delegates from Washington, Idaho, and Montana, (Rev. Stats. See. 1906). 


but for the Delegates from no other Territory. Whether, in the face of the ° 


constitutional provisions that ‘‘the House shall be composed of members 
chosen every second year by the people of the several States;’’ (Art. 7, Sec. 
2); that ‘‘each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifi- 
cations of its members;”’ (Art. 7, See. 5); and that ‘teach House may deter- 
mine the rules of its procedure,”’ (Art. 7, Sec. 5), the law creating the office 
of Delegate would or would not have any validity as against a rule of the 
House excluding from the floor all 'ferritorial Delegates, or anv other per- 
sons not constitutional members or officers of the House, I admit, for the 
purposes of this argument, that so long as Delegates shali be received in 
conformity with the provisions of the statute, it will be within the power of 
the House, and also its duty, pragtically to recognize and enforce this quali- 
fication of citizenship, whether prescribed by law or not. But it is an insult 
to the Governor and Secretary to suggest that they are capable of such un- 
warrantable invasion of the jurisdiction of the courts and of the House of 
Representatives as to attempt to incorporate as an element into their canvass 
in this case a decision adverse to my eligibility, based on a reversal or vaca- 
tion of the judgment by which I was naturalized. 

6,7. The next two propositions of Mr. Campbell may be conveniently 
considered together. He asserts that by reason of my alleged ineligibility 
all the 18,568 votes cast for me at the late election are void and are to be ex- 
cluded from the canvass, and that, as a consequence, the certificate of elec- 
tion is to be given to him, and not tome. I will cite, without discussion, the 
authorities by which the doctrine involved in these propositions has been 
repudiated as often as it has appeared in the Senate or in the House. 

. Thecase of Smith vs. Brown, 2 Bart., 395, is the leading case in the 
House of Representatives, It was reported from the committee on elections 
by the ehairman, Mr. Dawes, on the 28th of January, 1868. His exhaustive 
discussion of the subject appears on pages 402-405 of the second volume of 
Rartlett’s Contested Election Cases. He refers 10 the case of Ramsey vs. 
Hall, 23, argued by Mr. Madison in the House at the first session of the 
First Coneress, and to the cases of Albert Gallatin in the Senate in 1793, 
Philip Barton Key in the House in 1807, John Bailey in the House in 1824, 
James Shields in the Senate in 1849, and John Young Brown in the House 
in 1859. He also reviews the English authorities, and the opinion expressed 
in Cushing’s treatise, which is cited by Mr. Campbell, and he closes the 


XI 


discussion by declaring that ‘The law of the British Parliament in this par- 
ticular has never been adopted in this country, and is wholly inapplicable 
to the system of government under which we live.’’ 

In the subsequent case of Zeigler vs. Rice, this precise question was 
decided as follows: 

“Thus if will be seen that, according to the contestee’s own statement, 
he had entered into an agreement to recruit for the rebel army; was on his 
‘way to carry out fully his understanding when he was captured, and claimed 
protection as a rebel officer when captured. The Committee are well satis- 
fied that the acts of the contestee were well understood by the voters of said 
district at the time the contestee was voted for, but do not agree with con- 
testant that, as contestee was ineligible, the candidate who was eligible 1s 
entitled to the seat.’’ (z Bart., 884.) 

The committee accordingly recommended a resolution unseating Mr, 
Rice and declaring the seat vacant; but the House refused even to evict Mr. 
Rice. On the contrary, by the adoption of a substitute for the committee’s 
resolution, without a division, Mr. Rice was declared entitled to the seat. 
The proceedings may be found on page 5447, vol. £0, of tie Congressional 
alobe, 

In the Fortieth Congress, Simeon Corley, of South Carolina, Pierce M. B. 
Young and Nelson Tift, of Georgia, and Roderick R. Butler, of Tennessee, 
and in the Forty-first "Congress, Francis E. Shober, of North Carolina, 
members of the House, were > reliev ed of their disabilities long after their 
election, and vet, when. so relieved, were admitted to their seats in the House. 
All were ineligible when chosen, but in neither case was the seat given to a 
competitor, nor the election even declared void. 

In the case of Joseph C. Abbot, in the Senate (Forty-second Congress), 
the doctrine now asserted by Mr. Campbell was fully considered, and was 
repudiated by the Senate. There has not been and probably will not be in 
this country another discussion of the subject so exhaustive as that which 
was had in this case. The English authorities were all presented, and very 
few, if any, American decisions, whether judicial or parliamentary, escaped 
the ser utiny of the Senators who submitted the report of the coinmittee and 
the views of the minority, which are printed together in Senate Report No. 
58, Forty-second Congress, second session. 

In the case of Maxwell vs. Cannon. decided in the Forty-third Congress, 
the same question was raised, {and the committee and House, without a 
division, rejected the doctrine now asserted by Mr. Campbell. 

8. In reply to Mr. Campbell’s assertion that the females in the Territory 
who claimed the right to vote outnurabered all the votes polled at the late 
election, I respectfully submit, in the first place, that this alleged fact proba- 
bly does not appear on the face of the returns; and, in the next place, that if 
it be a fact capable of substantiation by extraneous proofs, and at the same 
time entitled to weight in any aspect of this case, the only tribunal invested 
with power to ascertain the fact and use it as a basis of judicial action is the 
House of Representatives of the United States. 

9. Mr.Campbell asserts that it ‘must be taken for granted”’ that all votes 
cast by females were cast for me. On this point also Mr. Campbell is mis- 
taken. If this is not shown bv the returns, the canvassers can neither pre- 
sume it nor permit Mr. Campbell to attempt tofprove it before them by 
extrinsic evidence, nor can they consider the fact when so proven. If he 
shall contest my seat in the nextC ongress, and shall deem the mode in 
which the females voted material to any issue in the contest, he will learn 
that the House will not presume what he asserts on tnis point to be true, 
but will compel him to prove it. 

10. Mr. Campbell asserts that the terrltorial legislation which extends 
the right of suffrage to females is void because “it attempts to confer the 
privilege bya special act on different and easier terms of qualification than 
those required by existing general laws applicable to the other sex, thus 


XIT 


violating the rule of uniformity.’’ If this assertion be true, itcin have no 
bearing upon the action of the canvassers, who have no power to look 
beyond the returns for the purpose of ascertaining whether females voted, 
how many voted, or for whom they voted, but only upon the action of the 
House of Representatives in a contest or undera protest before that tribunal. 
It is nota necessity of my case, therefore, that I shall vindicate the “act 
conferring upon women the elective franchise,’ approved February 12, 1870. 

ll. The next proposition of Mr. Campbell is, that itis, in view of the 
premises, impossible — to determine, without proof, that the 
18,568 votes cast for me included more legal votes than the 1,357 votes cast 
for him. This involves a singular misconception of the effect of these 
returns and of the relation sustained to them by the Governor and Secretary 
as canvassing officers. Mr. Campbell asserts the presumption to be that the 
votes returned for me were illegal votes, and that they are not to be can- ' 
vassed for me 1n theabsence of affirmative proof dehors the returns showing 
that they were 1n fact legal votes. Theabsurdity of this assertion is not even 
mitigated by a concession that the same presumption arises as to votes cast 
for him. ‘The rule does not, in his judgment, ‘work both ways.”’ The trath, 
however, on this point is very manifest. ‘The presumption is that all votes 
shown by returns legal in form, to have been cast for him or for me were so 
cast, and were lawfully cast. This presumption is not conclusive on the 
House in a contest duly prosecuted. It may be overcome by extrinsic 
proof. But itis conclusive on the canvassing officers, and ca inot before 
them be overcome by proofs outside of the returns if the returns are regular 
and legal. 

12. Mr.Campbell’s last point is that the votes of the women have ‘‘vitiated 
the election by rendering it impossible to determine without proof that the 
pretended majority for Mr. Cannon does not consist of such votes.’”? This 
is a most remarkable view of the law to be entertained by an aspirant to a 
seat in Congress. No board of canvassers can ever be absolutely certain 
that the majority of any candidate does not consist of ilegal votes, without 
extrinsic proof which is not ‘merely presumtive but absolutely conclusive. 
But the absence of such conclusive proof does not make the election void. 
It is an impossibility that any county returns should furnish conclusive 
proof of the legality of any votes. The proof which these returns afford is 
not conclusive, but presumptive. Upon this presumptive proof the can- 

vassers must act. They can resort to no other. Itis for them conclusive. 
They must award the credentials to the candidate shown by the returns to 
have been elected. In the House the case is different. The House may, in 
a contest of protest inquire into and pass upon the title to a seat; but even in 
the House the credentials will be presumptive evidence of title, and will be - 
decisive of the case unless overcome by counter proof. The House itself 
will not, in the absence of a contest, require conclusive proof. And in a con- 
tested case, a preponderence of proof will be decisive, whether the’ proof be 
or be not conclusive. 

If the House in a contested case shall find that of my 18,568 votes, 17,212 
were illegal, whether cast by women or by men, and that of Mr. Campbell’s 
1,357 none were illegal, the election will not be rendered void, but the seat 
will be awarded to Mr. Campbell. Butif the House shall not find that so 
many illegal votes were cast for me, it will confirm my title to the seat, 
whatever assertions Mr. Campbell may see fit to make inthe impeachment 
of that title. Of the question presented in this branch of Mr. Catnpbell’s 
protest, the Governor and Secretary, as canvassers, obviously have no 
shadow of jurisdiction. 

Having answered all the propositions upon which Mr. Campbell bases 
his protest against an award of the certificate of election to me, and his 
demand of an award of the certificate of election to himself, I respectfully 
submit that a returned majority of 17,211 votes, ina total vote of 19,825, 
gives me a title to the credentials which cannot be overridden by the Gover- 


XIII 


nor under any of the pretexts suggested by Mr. Campbell, without the 
grossest violation of law and of official duty. 
GEORGE Q. CANNON, 
WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 30, 1880. 


Oral arguments on the points involved were made by Hon. John R, 
McBride for Mr. Campbell, and by Hon. W. H. Hooper and John T. Caine, 
Esq., for Mr. Cannon. 

The following certificates of the Clerk of the Third Judicial District were 
filed by Mr. Campbell: 


UNITED STATES OF eh 
TERRITORY OF UAH, ss. 
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. J 


I, O. J. Averill, Clerk of the District Court for the Third Judicial Dis- 
trict, sitting in and for the county and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify 
that I have made a diligent search of all the records of said Third Judicial 
listrict Court as well as of all the records of the First Judicial District Court 
of said Territory, in my offlce, and in my custody from the organization of 
said Court, Oct. 6, 1851, up to the present time, and that Iam unable to find 
any record, in any of said records, of the admission of George Q. Cannon to 
become a citizen of the United States of America, or any record or order of 
said Court authorizing the Clerk of said Third District Court, or of said 
First District Court, to issue a certificate of citizenship to him, said George 
Q. Cannon. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the seal of said Court this 6th day of January, A. D. 1881. 
[SEAL.] O. J. AVERILL, Clerk. 
By H. G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. 


FourtH DAy, DECEMBER 7TH. 


Court met pursuant to adjournment, officers all present. 

Journal read. . . 

R. T. Burton, Deputy Marshal, made return for the summons issued in 
the case of C. Vrohis & Co. vs. Robert Caldwell, and W. P. Reynolds vs. 
Alfred B. Lambson, and the subpoenas issued in the case of the People vs. 
William Sullivan, all endorsed duly served. 

Clerk issued five subpoenas for witnesses before United States Grand 
Jury, returnable forthwith. 

Dimmick B. Huntington was appointed by M. Holman, United States 
District Attorney, Assistant Interpreter for the Indians, to interpret both 
before the United States Grand Jury and Court, and he appeared before the 
Clerk and was duly sworn in as such Interpreter. 

The United States Grand Jury not being ready to make any present- 
ments, the Court adjourned until the following morning at eleven o’clock. 

LEO SHAVER, Judge. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ag 
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. : 


I, O. J. Averill, Clerk of the District Court for the Third Judicial Dis- 
trict, sitting in and for the county and Territory aforesaid: Do hereby cer- 
tify that tke above and foregoing is a full, true and perfect copy of the 
Journal and Minute Book and all entries therein made and appearing on the 
seventh (7th) day of December, A. D. 1854, of the First Judicial District 
Court of the Territory of Uiah, as the same appears of record in my office, 
on page No. 216 of the Journal of said First District Court, and further that 


4 


XI1V 


I am the lawful custodian of said record, and authorized by law to certify 
the same. 
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the seal of said Third Judicial District Court of Utah Terri- 
tory this 5th day of January, A. D. 1881. 
[SEAL.] O. J. AVERILL, Clerk. 
By H. G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. 


There was also presented for inspection the book of Clerk’s certificates 
of declarations of intention to become citizens, and certificates of citizenship, 
in which appears what purports to be a copy of the certificate and which is 
claimed to be the naturalization of Mr. Cannon. Also a reply to the answer 
of Mr. Cannon, signed Allen G. Pann b ea by John R. McBride, attorney, 
which reply is as follows: 


To the Governor of Utah Territory: 


The law in force in this Territory at the time of George Q. Cannon’s 
alleged naturalization required: 

First—That a naturalization only could take place in one of the District 
Courts. See law of Utah Compilation of 1855. Page 22 

Second—A_ statement of the proof in which the person was admitted 
‘shall be stated and set forth * * inthe record of the court admitting the 
applicant; otherwise the same shall not entitle soi to be considered and 
deemed a citizen of the United States.’, (4th P. See. 2, Nat. Laws—Ib. p. 23.) 

Third—The third section of the ‘‘Act in relation to the judiciary (p. 29, 
Utah Comp. Laws of 1855) required the clerk to keep a record of the proceed- 
ings of the Court under the direction of the Judge. He shall from time to 
time read over all the entries therein in open court, which when correct 
shall be signed by the Judge’’—— 

These ‘sections, both of the ited States and the Utah Statutes, make it 
the duty of the Court and the clerk to make a record of the proceedings, 
and that record must, to be authentic, be signed by the Judge of the Court, 
and if a record is not so made in naturalization cases, the party “shall not 
be deemed a citizen.’’ In the case of George Q. Cannon there is no such re- 
eord. On the contrary, it appears from a certified copy of the actual record 
of the court at the time when he claims to have been naturalized, that no 
such proceeding took place, and it further appears that no such naturaliza- 
tion proceedings took place either then or at any time. 

The pretended certificate does not purport to be an exemplification of any 
record, and it appears that it was the common practice of the clerks to issue 
naturalization papers here without the proceeding being had before the 
‘court or judge at all. They were habitually peddled out over the country 
to anyone who would pay for them. Such a certificate or statement by a 
clerk as to the person holding it being a citizen is no more proof of the fact 
than if he had certified to the holder’s solvency, his general reputation or as 
to the place of his birth. The law gives no effect to such a certificate—it is 
void on its face. 

A clerk may make a copy of a record of the court and certify that it is 
a true copy, but no instance is known of a clerk being permitted to certify 
that certain things were done in court—the record must speak for itself—and 
he authenticates the record. Here then is no record and never has been, 
and as to this particular part the record shows that the clerk here stated a 
fact to exist which did not then, nor does it now exist. 

A clerk might as well issue an execution without any judgment having 
been rendered against the party. It affords no presumption even of the ex- 
istence of the fact. To prove the existence of any judgment it must be ex- 
emplified and then properly authenticated; in other words, where the record 


> O's 


is made the evidence, no statement or certificate of itis proof. The authen- 
ticated copy of it with the signature of the judge and the certificate of the 
clerk is the only proof which the law recognizes and without which the stat- 
ute says the party ‘‘shall not be deemed to be a citizen.”’ 

Mr. Cannon is disqualified to receive votes by a Territorial law, Section 
3 page 87, Compiled Laws of 1876. 

Every vote cast for him is in the language of Mr. Cushing, “thrown 
away’’ and cannot be counted. Cash L. and Pr., page 66, sec. 176, 178. 

The result is that Mr. Campbell is entitled to the certificate of election as 


Delegate to Congress. 
ALLEN_G. CAMPBELL. 
By JoHn R. McBRIDE, Attorney. 


Mr’ Caine for Mr. Cannon, filed a printed answer, which is made part of 
this paper. (See above.) 

Mr. McBride, for Mr. Campbell, cites the following authorities: 

Sec. 3, Chap. Ist, page 29 of Laws of Utah, 1851-1872, Par. 4, Sec. 2, page 
23, Laws of Utah, 1851-1872. 

Spratt vs. Spratt, 4th Peters, 6th Cranch, page 176; Compiled Laws of 
Utah, page 87; 7th Mass., pages 523, 527; Cushing’s Law and Practice of Leg- 
islative Assemblies, page 66 and pages 51 and 52. 

Mr. Caine, for Mr. Cannon, cites the following authorities: 

Act of Congress organizing the Territory of Utah, passed Sep. 9, 1850. 

McCrary’s American Law of Elections, pages 151, 167. 

It is not for me to go behind the returns, to defend the statute con- 
ferring suffrage upn women in the Territory, or to consider any of the ques- 
tions growing out of an exercise of suffrage. 

Call it ministerial, or judicial, or quasi-judicial, it is left only for me to 
ascertain the law, and to do that which it directs me to do. 

The Act of Congress passed Sep tember 9th, 1850, establishing the Terri- 
tory of Uiah, in referring to the election of Delegate to Congress, says: **The 
person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Gover- 
nor, duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly.”’ 

The Act of Congress approved June 8, 1872, enacts that the qualifications 
of voters and of holding office shall be such as the legislatures of Territories 
hereafter to be organized, as well as those already organized, may prescribe, 
subject, nevertheless, to the following restrictions; namely: Ist. ‘‘The right 
of suffrage and of holding office shali be exercised only by citizens of the 
United States above the age of twenty-one years, and by those above that 
age who have declared on oath before a competent court of record their in- 
tention to become such, and have taken an oath to support the Constitution 
of the United States,”’ ete. ' 

Congress therein explicitly determines that ‘‘person,’’ as used in the act 
of 1850, means a “‘citizen.’’ Under this law the Legislature of Utah has re- 
stricted the right of voting and of holding office to citizens of the United 
States, excluding those who have merely delared their intentions to become 
such. 

The certificate of the Clerk of the Third District Court, he having the 
custody of the records, and having examined them, explicitly states, under 
his seal, that from the organization of the court to the present time, he is 
‘‘anable to find any record, in any of said records, of the admission of George 
Q. Cannon to become a citizen, or any record or order of said court author- 
izing the clerk of said Third District, or of said First District Court to issue 
a certificate of admission to citizenship to him, said George Q. Cannon.’’ 
This must decide my action. The certificate of W. I. Appleby, clerk of the 
First District Court, is claimed to be the naturalization of Mr, Cannon. 

The following is a copy:of this paper: 


XVI 


CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP OF ONE WHO ARRIVED IN_ THE UNITED 
STATES BEFORE HE WAS EIGHTEEN, 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, ss. 
GREAT SALT LAKE ,COUNTY. 


United States First District Court for the Territory of Utah: 


Be it remembered, that on the seventh day of December, A. D. 1854, 
George Q. Cannon, a subject of Queen Victoria, made application and satis- 
fied the court that he came to reside inthe United States before he was 
eighteen years of age; and thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon appeared 
in open court, and was sworn in due form of law, and on his oath did say, 
that for three years last past, it has been his bona fide intention to become a 
citizen of the United States, and to renounce and abjure forever all allegi- 
ance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty 
whatever; and thereupon, the court being satisfied by the oaths of Joseph 
Cain and lias Smith, two citizens of the United States, that the said George 
Q. Cannon, for one year last past, has resided in this Territory, and for four 
years previous thereto he resided inthe United States—that during that time 
he has behaved as aman of good moral character—that he is attached to the 
principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the 
good order of the inhabitants thereof, admitted him to bea citizen of the 
same. And thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon was in due form of law 
sworn to support the Consitution of the United States, and absolutely and 
entirely to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to every 
foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and particularly 
to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subject he heretofore 
has been. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, 
and affixed the seal of said court, this seventh day of De- 
[L. 8.] cember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four and of 
the Independence of the United States the seventy-ninth. 
W. I. APPLEBY. Clerk. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, tas 
SauLt LAKE COUNTY, j "~~ 


I, Ezra T. Sprague, Clerk of the Supreme Court of said Territory of 
Utah, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing is a full, true and 
correct copy of an instrument contained in a certain book received by me 
froin my predecessor in said office of Clerk, and which remains deposited in 
iny office. 

: In testimony “whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and the 

[L. S.] seal of said court, this 7th day of January, A.D. 1881. 

E. T. SPRAGUE, Clerk. 


The record of the court is the only means of ascertaining its judgments 
and orders. The clerk’s certificate of the judgments and orders of a compe- 
tent court, and not his individual statements without seal, is the only guide 
in all cases, and therefore must be in this case. The records of the court 
fail to make Mr. Cannon a citizen,and he, as J, must stand by the record. 
Mr. Cannon, under any other circumstances, might, perhaps, acquire citizen- 
ship by the time his term of office commences, but it is charged in Mr. 
Campbell's protest, and not denied in Mr. Cannon’s answer, that he is liy- 
ing in polygamy,a violation of the act of Congress of 1862 making it a 
crime. This being the case, he is not ‘‘well disposed towards the Govern- 


a 


— 


XVII 

ment of the United States.’’ Therefore, he ee in Pe taibh, take, the 
oath of naturalization, and the courts of this Tervis Ory. uniformly anrorce 
this rule. The House of Representatives, Congr essiynae Record of June 16th, 

1874, page 5046, affirmed the same principle in’ House bil, 5679, provid: ng 
that. delegates in Congress should be 25 years of; age, seven years 4 aitinen, 
and an inhabitant of such Territory, ‘‘and no suéh:persen, who, is guilty of 
bigamy or polygamy shall be eligible to a seat as Such’ deloeate.’ SF ong. 

Tt having been shown that Mr. Cannon is not a citizen, an tRAt, he is in- 
capable of becoming a citizen, I cannot, under the law, "certify that he is 
“duly elected,”’ and Mr. Campbell having received the greatest number of 
votes cast for any citizen, was therefore duly elected and must receive the 
certificate accordingly. 

Jam aware that my action on this question is not final. The House is 
the judge of the qualifications and election of its members, but in the dis- 
charge of my sworn duty under the law to give the certificate to the person 
duly elected, I cannot do otherwise than give it to Alen G. Campbell. 

ELI H. MURRAY. 


THE CERTIFICATE. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, SS. 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE. J 


I, Eli H. Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah, do declare and 
certify that at a regular election for Delegate to the Forty-~eventh Congress, 
held in said Territory on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novem- 
ber, A.D. 1880, returns whereof were opened in iny presence by the Secretary 
of the Territory, Allen G. Campbell was the person, being a citizen of the 
United States, having the greatest number of votes, and was therefore duly 
elected as Delegate from said Territory to said Congress, and I do give this 
certificate accordingly. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 

[L.S.] the Great Seal of the Territory to be affixed. Done at Sait 

Lake City, this eighth day of January. A.D. 1881. 
Exrt H. Murray, Governor. 


By the Governor: 
ARTHUR L, THOMAS, 
Secretary of Utah Territory. 3 


« 


} CAND (0N'S > - NOTICE OF CONTEST. 


ee 
fi 


WASHINGTON, D. C., January 20, 1881. 
Allen G. Campbell, Esq.; 


S1r--T have the honor to notify you that I shall contest your right to hold 
a Seat in the House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of the 
United States, as Delegate from the Territory of Utah, and also” your right 
either to be sworn or enrolled, or to hold a certificate of election as such 
Delegate on the following erounds: 

1. That the returns of the election of Delega‘e to the Forty-seventh 
Congress of the United States, held on the 2d day of November, 1880, in the 
several ‘counties of the Territory of Utah, which were prepared and for- 
warded to the Secretary of the Territory, under Sections 23 and 24 of the 
Compiled Laws of the Territory of Utah, copies of which returns, marked 
respectively A. B. C. D, ete., are hereto annexed, showed, as the fact was, 
that 18,568 votes were legally cast for me at said election; that only 1,357 
votes were cast for you, and that only eight votes werefcast for all other eandi- 
dates, and that I was, therefore, legally elected to said office of Delegate 
from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, and was also 
entitled to receive the certificate of election, and to be enrolled and sworn as 
such Delegate. 

2. That said returns showed, as the fact was, that you received less than 
one-thirteenth of the votes legally cast at the said election, and therefore 
were not entitled to hold the said Office of Delegate from the Territory of Utah 
in the Forty-seventh Congress, or to be enrolled or sworn as such Delegate, 
or to receive such certificate of election to said oflice, 

3. That the actionjof the Governor of the Territory of Utah in the with- 
holding the certificate of election from me, and giving it to you, was illegal 
and fraudulent. 

Very respectfully, 
GEORGE Q. CANNON. 


EXHIBIT ‘A.’ 


CouUNTY AND PROBATE CLERK’S OFFICE, ) 
BEAVER COUNTY, BEAVER CiTy, UTAH, | 
Noy. 5, 1880. ) 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, Ss 
CoUNTY OF BEAVER. 
T, William Fotheringham, County Clerk of Beaver County, do hereby 
certify that at a general election held in the several precincts of Beaver 


XIX 


County, on the second day of November, A. D. 1880, for the purpose of elect- 
ing a Delegate to Congress, the results of said election are as follows, to-wit: 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 


WRC TAC WE CAR LEEBOND Hactacd dic ras Gita cigs vebence Gece Gots an eahls doce de ce seaahs dus 9 heifvale 515 votes. 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 
Allen G. Campbell............: Mediteicee etn weelene theks reine cd vaneeadncee cays 222 votes. 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 
Uma PEUMNON ARES ESEC Rite Os oo Sen Cin occ angie SUR TEL ee a cVanderh sraserecene scissile OLOL 


Witness my hand, and the seai of the County Court of Beaver 
County, this Fifth day of November, A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL. ] WILLIAM FOTHERINGHAM, County Clerk. 


HABIT BYOB.” 


Returns of the General Biennial Election heid in the various precincts 
of Box Elder County, Utah ‘Territory, on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 1880: 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 


Geo. Q. Cannon ‘recelvediiissc..i0 oi essiheew ess seisets cbeeee se ldee socsoeeesS00 VOLES! 
AAI Sire AMI DOLE POCOIVGU icant vai desea ckucids o°Sse4 Woaevversrectin dvoweqeete 73 votes. 


I, James Bywater, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and 
correct copy and abstract of the returns of the General Biennial Election 
held in Box Elder County, Utah, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, 
A. D. 1880, as appears of record in my office, showing the offices to be filled, 
the persons voted for, and the number of votes each person received. 

Witness my hand and seal of court, at Brigham City, this 
Seventeenth day of November, A. D. I880. 
{SEAL.] JAMES Bywater, County Clerk. 


OXHISIT: C7! 


OFFICE OF CLERK OF COUNTY COURT FOR CACHE ) 
COUNTY, IN THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, 
LOGAN City, Nov. 3, A. D. 1880. J 


Abstract of votes polled in Cache County, on Tuesday, Noy. 2d, A. D. 
L880, for Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Utah; 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 

Geo rire Gs Carina pEOCGINGU itr seek csitecnsceccesecnsasye ekceoeerug tot. VULOss 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 

PAREN PORT TLL FODOL VOU nulencrscgs farses soreevese ca ceresets envy perverse VOLOSs 


XX 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, oy 
COUNTY OF CACHE. | ~~" 


I hereby certify the foregoing to be a correct copy of the names of the 
persons voted for, and the number of votes each has received for Delegate to 
Congress, at the election held November 2d, A. D. 1880, in Cache County. 

[SEAL. ] JAMES T. HAMMOND, 

Clerk of County Court for Cache County. 
By W. W. MAUGHAN, Deputy Clerk. 
To the Hon. Secretary of the Territory. 


1H Bee 


ABSTRACT OF ELECTION. 


Names of persons voted for and the Names of precinevts and number 
offices they are intended to fill. of votes polled in each. 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. South Precinct. t 
George Q. Cannon.......... Secepdide da ves Bey ahiss sik cok a cat allie wbiind ranean gee 91 votes. 
Allen: GAC amp bell sscas.cctsypeanes Moos scesniiettewieass see aneracks sing penta ecnases VOLOSs 
West Precinct. 

TOOTRS Ol CANNOT mresetecatas cori evisads Seesdts nk clonen sip vanea eicas tented .. 45 votes. 

A Men irs Cami pOGliseccctctstetess eee’ oe Siusoast cooks saaet tee sere ember emeaere 1 vote. 
Bountiful Precinct. 

Heorge Q. CamMMon...... sesesess ovscreses veress Dae eee Scape ees Danke ars ceticee 170 votes. 

Allen G. Campbell...... Bons alevaasha ps dean Gacabee ena etcaatsn Ghakea sen es ace cme 8 votes. 
Centreville Precinct. 

George: Qs Cannons) iicvssp=cscestes Say eesens- wate ctees WV aLMeN ieee ts Sea semneN tee 88 votes. 

Allen G.:\ Gam piel nccc5 setathesedevasscvasensentaceesns a cdeteabbekbetvetatvaceet 2 votes. 
Farmington Precinct. 

(Feor gee GC). CANNON cies siescscssiess vos cniseetmateuses sunranesheatstecseaener! 137 votes. 


Allen G. Campbell isda ive.csecsinesscounun censoees soosseccetunsaithesghinansenecs 0 mmanE mm 
Kaysville Precinct, 


George Q. Cannon......... weldeebat acepucvsepaebay 4aatccaesnensgataspasaatments 247 votes. 
South Weber Precinct. 
George Qs Cannon caik..apstrcrateey eee: Sere cas ep rere er 21 votes. 
Hooper Precinct. } 
George Q. Cannon...... Ticee apa avaee opens ie aathiatty «ate ree Sancti yannsaveeeees 51 votes. bo 
Allen G. Campbell........ Sapte seahptite ete Raven sta ar omnahas tepaseae ats ereeeeaa eee ..6 votes. 
Total votes received. 
George Q. Cannon....... Pete auay brane evga sd douunys Deaamtecd euatean bapprte aes 850 votes. 
Allon G. Campbell acter stan cheuvevecetesastanenatte’s asc oenisrate Uae tintin tere 26 votes. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ae 
CouNTY OF DAVIs. } ~~’ 


T, Joseph Barton, County Clerk of the County of Davis, Territory of 
Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and cor- 
rect abstraet of the returns of an election held in the several precincts, in 
said Davis County, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, 


XXI 


and the names of the persons voied for, and the number of votes each has 
received for Territorial Offices. 
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the seal of the County Court of said County, the 3d day of 
November, A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL.] JOSEPH BARTON, County Clerk. 


BEE BI Tei? 


CASTLE DALE, EMERY Country, UTAH TER., 
November 8, 1880. 


Hon. A. LT. Thomas, Secretary_of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Ter.: 


No election returns from Emery County. 
EMANUEL BAGLEY. 


PNT EB iS i 


Abstracts of the election .returns of the Biennial Election held in the 
various precincts of Iron County, Utah Territory, November 2d, A. D. 18890, 
for the purpose of electing a Delegate to Congress: 

No. of votes polled. 


Parowan Precinct for Geo. Q. Cannon........ ARR Se ihn eee prer ees terested bie: 

iy oy “A. G. Campbell ..c...0.: ivi diteMagtesee epamveseRaecetees £74 ae! 
Cedar sé SP Girt ey CULL TIA reacts tey ok wana Revered ti eee teneelta bio L 
Panguitch ‘ dy ois ania) Rede ee are vals seneeey are, Gsreatane ds 9} 
Paragoonah ‘‘ “ es Bay etic’ Mace RE PEE a aNd 49 
Escalante - oa ib a Mpa eeacese Bn -3 DAI inctudsseones 58 
Cannonville ‘ Be ie Ve Be cots datiscaaes ven kek emt tatee vais call aL 
Hillsdale ss “ ES os seatesesaaeiats Be SS he EEN CO aa Keddcet Ao 
Summit - Se ds “4 aeatenaids aves MEctnssucteer ties care vecstel 


Making a total of 495 votes polled in Iron County, 491 for George Q. Can- 
non, and 4 for A. G. Campbell. 

We, Edwin Dalton, Probate Judge, and John E. Dalley, County Clerk in 
and for Iron County, Utah Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is 
a full, true, and correct abstract of the election returns of the Biennial Elec- 
tion held in the various precincts of Iron County, Utah Territory, Nov. 2d, 
A. D. 1880, for the purpose of electing a Delegate to Congress. 

In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands, and 
affixed the seal of the County Court of Tron County, this 
Tenth day of November, A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL.] EDWARD DALTON, Probate Judge. 
JOHN E. DALLEY, County Clerk. 


XXIT 
EX HIBLE “Gi? 


Abstract of the General Election for a Delegate from the Territory of 
Utah to the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, held in Juab 
County, Utah Territory, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, 1880. 


Name of Precinct. Nuiaber of votes polled 
for George Q. Cannon. for Allen G. Campbell. 
IN GPU diorneas ncvavencaxs¥ veasspasseecteaies DOD > doves ssoheeps cenwseks susan ded'eh. bag anaewe cane ewe 1 
LGVEN csctecascssturteasescee <LI RED 1 Goncvn.as laseecavavuvs is eos veeess Aer asenennae 
Mona.:.3.; Korumcuvsseurs i aesteuvers = deaers 49 vibes er Laseveeddevaduses cs anng sump esceienme 
LUMI ake assaersdap anageragseacsceaccgal UM Ulecdecahepsmchesena Ee aeraie Las te ts er eaann ene 48 
Total titniber, Of VOTES....5..0s0is ssn FOL asics rein soaved usessaaeevess webs nad perme 49 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, 
COUNTY OF JUAB. j 


T, William A. C. Bryan, Clerk of the County Court of Juab County, in 
Utah Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct 
abstract of the General Election held in said County on Tuesday, the Second 
day of November, A. D. 1880. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed 
the seal of the County Court of said County, at my office in 
Nephi, this Fourth day of November, A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL. ] Wm. A. C. BRYAN. 


SS. 


EX HI BED HH 7? 


Abstract of the General Election heldin Kane County, Utah Territory, 
November 2d, A. D. 1880. 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 
Georee'Qs Cannone sricsseecsdecostcascoduccnabin sted aeectsitlaetesecnc taco? 607 votes. 


I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the 
returns of the election held in Kane County, Utah, on the Second day of 
November, A. D, 1880, as appears by the General Abstract of the returns of 
said election, now on file in my office. 

Witness my hand and seal of the County Court of Kane 
County, U. 'T., this Ninth day of November, A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL. ] MARTIN SLACK, County Clerk. 


EXHIBIT “I.” 


Abstract of the election held in Millard County, November 2d, 1880, 
The number of votes fur the different candidates were as follows: 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 
George 2. Cannon: sscc.cceneruscevhesaien (Mueregtsoosncsehs venapiavers aewnanel yy Law Cem 
AiG. CAM Del icceterrseres Vuaeah¥eseehdan ae ees EN Cad td nent tenee UNAMID AR Bf. aes 


Oba LserraviAvcy the ie Ghd 


XXITI 


I hereby certify that the forgoing is a correct representation of the votes 
cast at the election held in Millard; County, U. T., on the Second day oi 
November, A. D. 1880, as appears by certified returns filed in my office. 

Witness my official signature and seal of Millard County, in 
my office in Fillmore City, this Sixth day of November, 
A. D, 1880, 
[SEAL.] C. ANDERSON, 
Olerk of the County Court, Millard County, U. T. 


BRAIBVEaS I.) 


Abstract of General Election Returns of Morgan County, Nov. 2, 1880. 


Name of Office— 
DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 


Names of person voted for. 


Canyon Creek Precinct... ...... George Q. Cannon...... ..... 80 votes. 

Morgan City Cela akedenscccay bh hey Stee ay Oia hire 
ae iy ai iene oA lem G., Campbell, .5..<.5. Avy oF 
Peterson A, Pre etss ry George Q. Cannon............34 oh: 
Milton ue oh porate ear St at ATL BAMA TALE bmnwe oxy pet vias MI 
i Pam wee acy xe “atten G. Campbell Ae ne Daas 
Croyden Aa ASE Bis 8 epee de Aa peel aid: State Aa recent meee 
Ae) Pore eee auieus Che GrpiriO Nite se veces ces PAN 

Total number of votes............ George Q: Cannone ce 231 

‘ Jats . Allen G G@. Campbell....... as 


This is to certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the Abstract 
of the General Election returns of Morgan County, held November 2, 1880. 
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my official signature 
and the seal of Morgan County Court, this 4th day of Nov. 
1880, 
[SEAL.] S. FRANCIS, SR., County Clerk. 


MOS HIBIT AS Ka?! 


Abstract of the returns of the election held in Piute County, Utah Terri- 
tory, November 2, A. D. 1880. 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS: Bullion Precinct, 

Willen. Gre CAM PDS TOC VO” ....scecsrnstdvrsteonecosacverseusetedieswedsnke 21 votes. 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 

CEOLES Ge CATION TEOCELV OC Sean. cccecansvcets sateceve€ er ists seusrentd Saccohes . 3 votes. 
FOR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, 

Charles B. Egan received........scsscscsess seveeees Urimehe estes asta? ane scat .24 votes. 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Circleville Precinct, 


George Qo Cannon TOCOLV Ed <2 screen ssicceese sulscsinn trvscence veverveaasenssadl VOLES. 


XXIV 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 
A AT DDG carcssashieness Koop dbiss ss! ths sabead Rastbeuae sabe ren anees 
FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Koosharem Precinct. 


George. Q. Cannon TECOTV OC dc scccas ssessess ran vecthesesens veesesegedd VOLES: 


tcleiessen Oe VOteee 


eeeeeeeree 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Fremont Preeinct. 


George Q. Cannon received.......... DE kvcatdteeon tee ativerncents prentees .28 votes. 
Total votes received by George Q. Cannon......... seeeeeeee LOD Votes, 

“ 4 4 Allen-G, -Campbell...cvi.s.200s5. ec ee 

ss Je Ag Ghas.7 Bs gan caictiuasaastsean esses eee 


I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct abstract of the 
returns of the election held in Piute County, Utah Territory, November 2d, 
A. D. 1880, at which election the persons above named received the number 


of votes placed in figures opposite their respective names. ; 
Witness my hand and seal of Office. Done at Junction, Piute 


County, Utah Territory, this 6th day of November, A. D. 


1880. 
[SEAL. ] C. KE. BorTonr, 
County Clerk, Piute County. 


EX AIBITS “LG.” 
RANDOLPH, Nov. 5, 1880. 


Hon. A. L. Thomas, Secretary of Utah: 
DEAR Str—I herewith send you election returns from Rich County, Utah. 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 
ante eC AU ENRON ERIE 


George Q. Cannon...... ..+++. cece ie 


Special election at Laketown Precinet— 


FOR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, 
Veet ete LEMOLGSS 


Hugh Findlay........... a eeeass Soe agees 


TERRITORY OF UTAR, | ss 
County OF RIcH. j 
T, William Rex, County Clerk in and for said County and Territory, do 


hereby certify that the above is acorrect copy of the returns of election held 
on the 2d inst., as is shown by the abstract of returns now on file in my 


office. } 
[SEAL.] Wm. REx, County Clerk. 


XXV 


EXHIBIT “‘M.?? 


Triplicate. 
General Abstract of the Delegate Election, November 2, 1880. 
Names of Precincts. Names of Candidates. ~ No. of votes. 
ist Precinct, Salt Lake City,........... George Q. Cannon............ 434 votes. 
a se be Sioa: Allen G. Campbell............ Dloaes 
2d A MT a Wirsetcutes Ooes George Q. Cannon............ 487 ‘% 
As “ © Oc cccres OA Lois Ge. Campbell ..-ta..0.., 4h 4 
3d « ue ry lh 8 AN George Q. Cannon............ fipe see te 
eC eRe recvtcreds Allen G. Campbell............ GS 
4th 66 ss LS AES eset ty be George Q. Cannon............ 840 5 
3 Hy ed ST Me tc He sacs Allen G. Campbell............ pA le 
ds OEM es ah ee George Q. Cannon............ 415 $6 
a ee ee iat oy NR Sia Allen G. Campbell............ 56° $s 
a af Ne Oe ee nies fe tt ECODOLL? WWALMAINLS. © scatiectsscs ly; get 
Sugar House Precinct, ............ George Q. Cannon............ GOieac! 
Mountain Dell BS tt ertas ae ae He as Loans 
Farmers oC ES epee epee A APS perce? Boe ss 
MORSE ILE CEO ee Oe iswesvegen ae De a A 49) 36 
Mill Creek vo din AG prakiee yr eA by sia LiMrr a Tree Ears ess 
Butler Sint de) Siem Pets Mees SEE a cathee sons B5r te 
Granite i el ur ee yd ee sb, SAA AS castes save TE, 58s 
PO OUL YW OOGs se) Vl leenecasensss se Ooi Ss ica car canas Shas: 
BOUL LCOCCOMWOOC “fe lee. he bee alee ere ae TE ee 
oh a Lop) | add ibs te one Allen G. Campbell........... mk Oh es 
Union ehh ad he Nema A Saiaae George Q. Cannon............ aS cst 
Sandy 5 RE asec nc os. hy EF) ST adarrasteed 43 66 
a A ae eee Allen G. &ampbell............ y AM AS. 
Ny ae ip ay fepetereteee Wiis CISEK 6) Fo Fan cccdisnces Tees 
os ieee teed ROI Pe ccns ccc Isaac Harrison  e.secooee.se fH 
Little Cottonwood ‘‘ Wanita ws cope FRET rs COM DOLL ,cctessne ees 28. «8 
Draper abo eae George Q. Cannon............ JOTmaAs 
se SUMED CA cts Sascoante Allen G. Campbell............ ass 
Riverton Sam Gm eho ccasaaa ys George Q. Cannon............ ou +s 
South Jordan Se Oa AMIS SSS Sees vi ie ee eerily Pee peop GSans' 
West Jordan oS Tre feces Cai a SIA rcetete esd 114 -§ 
North Jordan ah (aes a heya Sina ee oR ccicscasant? GU anes: 
Ft. Herriman COW RAT Carers teiecs Oe SOD a batteries sey Hits 
Bingham SAMMI Ss Sc ccseus) oS Sneath Coxe asad Les 
A AW CL Gte eet Allen G. Campbell............ 49 $6 
Brighton See PAE cent asiee ie George Q. Cannon............ pAR Cott 
GARAGE GTOOI ee Ces cassaceces PA Mere eee Ty 249y ts 
Hunter et Aa Ba Rh wee ‘ LL Pal eras elie AB 
North Point tA ike Aer ere Pore a pO Mare ret eects pve told 
Granger SSB ih (ak me cove valde 2 SS ot bens dete Sashes Hines: 
PVOURE A echivincscetyexse (FEOT IO. GC) Cannot ssc ects ceasdeses 3333 
sear ouadgdumecttes Ce Allen G. Campbell..............008- 243 
PPIATE hte teh tne lie'e ede Robert Williamg iil. ccecsseces 1 
BE Vas Nad teases sete WARE Gari Aa ti iirovcas.cccaees bas 3° 
SP ernsderiat aes exe SAAC LAL PIS Tie wun. ccccriess cattad 1 
Uae ATOM RL Nevecarecs .ceredsndvek (recut neae ene xecaetnehyers caseees 3579 


XXVI 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ) A 
CoUNTY OF SALT LAKE. j 


I, D. Bockholt, Clerk of the County Court of Salt Lake County, U. T., 
do hereby certify that the foregoing exhibit is a full, true, and complete 
abstract of the election lists returned from the several precincts of Salt Lake 
County, and filed in my office. 

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the seal of the County Court, at my office in Salt Lake City, 
this 4th day of November, 1880. 

[SEAL] D. BoCKHOLT, 

Clerk of the County Court, Salt Lake County. 


EXHIBIT *‘N,”’ 


Returns of an election held in Sanpete County, Utah Territory, on the 
Second day of November, A. D. 1880, for the purpose of electing a Delegate 
to Congress for Utah Territory. 


George Q. Cannon received............. aon cacasewiehsae aut cee ote oneu tetas 1673 votes. 
Allen G. Campbell ES is WH eaanchit detaauletsebanaaee nei ecay ts Rep aeee oem 43 7S 
Joseph S. Rawlins SUE aces a vaiGE anne raere tes Si hee deaneite cae tee peg 


I hereby certify, that the foregoing is a true abstract of the election as 
above set forth, as it appears from the returns of the various precincts of 
said county, now in my office. 

Witness my hand and the seal of the County Court of Sanpete 
County, Utah Territory, this 4th day of November, A. D. 


1880, 
[SEAL. ] WILLIAM T. REID, 


Clerk of the County Court of Sanpete County, Utah. 


BiG 6 RSP Shiney Bold 


November Election Returns, 1880. 
Abstract of Election Returns from Sevier County, Utah Territory: 


Office to be filled. Candidate. Total No. Votes. 
Delegate to Congress............ Hon. Geo. Q. Cannon............06- 568 votes. 
Alien GeCampbell, rect: sesso 5 
TL OtAl VOCS POMOC ss s1..0ca ssc cone sureoorcryaesuuereenisase wep eeiens 573 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, 
COUNTY OF SEVIER, ; 


I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct abstract of the 


» 


XX VII 


election returns on file in my office of the November election, held November 
the Second, 1880. 
Witness my hand and seal of the Court, this Eighteenth day of 
November, A. D. 1880. 
) [SEAL. ] JNO. A, HELLSTROM, County Clerk. 


ERS EBC bas 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, 
COUNTY OF SUMMIT. 


Election of Delegate to Congress from the Territory of Utah, held in tho 
County of Summit, November 2, 1880. 


The votes polled were as follows: 


RR CECA Cot CAL ERULOUEL foe oe ces salt oc dat x dibeensh cen ua eens cas ecd tissue anieey ...433 votes. 
‘¢ Allen G. Ae Ua Tease: divesii nea tena teecdakadenh ee de LT Syl Se 
‘“ EF. D. McKim.. Bee a Ae esa ls duce tee Cea cas} Saale eat eda On hie 


I, the undersigned, County Clerk i in atid tae tho Gatdies of Summit, U. 
3} thes do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct list of the votes 
polled in Summit County on the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, for 
Delegate to Congress, according to the returns from the various precincts 
now on file in my office. 
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the County seal, at my office in Coalville City, this Eighth 
day of NA A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL.] ROBERT SALMON, Coanty Clerk. 


MX HIBIT )“@."* 


CouNTY CLERK’S OFFICK, ) 
ToOELE Ciry AND County, U.T\., + 
November, 1880. J 


Hon. A. L. Thomas, Secretary of Utah: 


{ DEAR StR—Permit me to report to you the result of the Biennial election 
for Delegate to Congress, held on the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, 
in Tooele County, Utah Territory: 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 


GOOree. Ch LOATINON TEOCELVOU cor. cat cacateeens us tires atdsarscesvevedss<¢+r1 O14 VOLES: 
PLOT es CIM WOLL TOCGL VO ii uransc tors etee ted tian cites; Uuearercatencnes OU so 


T hereby certify that the above is a true report of the’votes polled at said 
. election, as fully appears from the returns from the various precincts of 
: said county, now on file in my office. 
Witness my Official signature and seal at my office, the day 
and year first above written. 
[SEAL.] F, M. Lyman, County Clerk, 


XXVIIT 


EXHIBIT ‘“Q.” 


Abstract of the votes polled at an election held in Utah County, Terrie 
tory of Utah, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, for 
Delegate to the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, ‘tor the Territory 
of Utah. 


No. of votes polled No. of votes polled Total number of 


Precinct. for George Q. for Allen G, votes polled in 
Cannon. om as each Precinct. 
PURENO sassenssh ccapelapecercen DOS .neescnss deeded ebeeeeee 1B: ee dscccetaaea eee 516 
Springville.............0. OU saceseadhanscey sdessssoeres DS. dar dacs severe beteendee te 388 
Spanish Fork.......... Di Dasssseesas Davake wewenener B ivasenss snd sence erie 378 
SIALGIN caters a ere teee 1D cvcvcoced cOosdnees ssvusnity IL vase dhesenluatal ieee anne 79 
eV SON s ercascrmenas teense DU cyh sik pany chosen evince rates A anuuseuvsn Cineceeia ss Kamae 307 
Benjamins! .. .9sbGeks Retaksteulen stk yhodurapseate Daas reedtiatnihecu ee ae 32 
Spring Lake............ Al). sssseees vanusqideinbes ages mk Wntewen daisies eee eet seams 40 
SS tAG 1 Ay venpeecs ee DO sl vimanas uta te uasbut/ena ir EEss Sein abnenaiys saan sen meee 99 
AFOSD OU cages acchecesecanaee GO Geshasescnvatceeeeare rn eteee re Messe cotea eet eanssaee 89 
FPAUVTIOIA wabivad ss coohaneac ¢o-S25 vi isan eeie dees ol wapeenhyed se saakteebsteorttadl Aarne 25 
Coder Hor.. caeaon BU 5 sowsrdeneavadaicckenvans ava weed aveue'onsls ove staan 
BT EL van ey meer Deed «pseu veivapnirantncies ead sleae ie 4) eu ggeekeat Sete nen 238 
Alpine.. Gb Seis ahs! BOs cis laa gus 5 aisle enioamete say Diy coninste bok cans tea 73 
American ¥F ork. rant Dats paasdcuse nse teaeeene tee enes Diesasuesenhsuantens Racers 234 
Pleasant Grove.. SAO) nna arvadiceetceeeetenes D ca seis Coa even sige axte eae 227 « 
Thistle Valley........ LD vv epcnsesnsscedasas sesh waa’ imiwog oases sdnaas tan teva 16 


Totals nce see ee ia Oase eeeree Cee see tee eet ees ee Odoee PCOS eee see ter eeeeee 1. ZOOL 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ae 
COUNTY oF UTAH. : 


I, Wilson H. Dusenberry, Clerk of the County Court of Utah County, 
Ter ritory of Utah, hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and_cor- 
rect copy of the original abstract of the votes polled at an ‘election held in 
the County of Utah, Territory of Utah, on Tuesday, the Second day of No- 
vember, A. D. 1880, for Delegate to the Forty-Seventh Congress of the United 
States for the Territory of Utah. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said Court at Provo City, this 
4th day of November, A. D. 1880. 

[SEAL. ] WILSON H. DUSENBERRY, 

Clerk of the County Court. 


BRUTE os. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, Ss 
COUNTY OF WASATCH, 


@ 


I, the undersigned, County Clerk in and for the County of Wasatch, in 
the Territory of Utah, hereby certify that the following isa true abstract of 
the returns from the several election precincts in said County, viz.: 


XXIX 


Heber Precinct— 

For George Q. Cannon, Delegate to Congress ...........:.s:ece000 81 Votes, 
Midway Precinect— 

Cannon, Delegate to Gonpress),.....ciisss..d...esssocssceesees vesseeeese0250 VOLES. 
Charleston Precinct— 

Cannon, Delegate to CONQTESS.........sccccrssteccssssseecsssessscesscesess00 VOLES, 
Wallsburgh Precinet— ; 

Cannon, Delegate to CONZTESS.........cssccccscssserscesees a9 ssscrsceseeed0 VOLES. 


POUR Etec etecreddteacl cs atwetseterst eet 
And 7 for Campbell. 
[SEAL. ] CHAS. SHELTON, County Clerk. 


UTS ab ald bela aly 


Abstract of Election returns of the General Election, November 2, 1880. 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS, 
George Q. Cannon. Allen G. Campbell. 
a WEAN SEY Vag RES SV) IRA rgler ML pte dies oo Nae a er I a eee A 


POG PALLET COLD raiser vous segess<ccrees cr anenees PEs scuscantecs eau i eateecsgte sec ses <sasee 
ANNES cocnelacce ct Feeler eats S eedeart aerate oe MA Baad hae tats Lebed> ah TAR eaa 
Ea Beigel od a toret RE qAREER aN ARR Rae FERED ti etplaee Ag alte Mare aka tans BP RMR oe Great iby RAM 9 i 1 6 
J eae Tels th eager re oa aE on, ES oie Biel WTR has ol Lem eee C8) Sari AB eRe Se 
ree ee N ETE Cree ccs cae cs on sche r CHOTA TUS, BRL cuties nd pach de caddie tensaen naka taba 
OPT OC ese, Lax cactanccerscntisesasan vavnces bg Ent Eb Petaeg ose aS eae te dak Ve cacundas beens 
REIL IY ie adg's video ses wacassedscazswedses Mist saratess dts cotecvecciteassencs secs crias 
MPETTG CPR ree ees evr ents tevades ioscvevceaaencencd Bere tiantered nactetes ie Ly ereeirery 
ESTE ee arenas cea baavaneedastes ceovseterteaser By. dae epee bare. i ar eyes ere apes 
SER ca) We bdcce aca reeca «tc cksualees ace 713 176 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ae 
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, . 


TI, Adolphus R. Whitehead, County Clerk of Washington County, hereby 
certify the foregoing to be a true and correct abstract of the returns of the 
election held in Washington County, Utah Territory, Tuesday, November 
2d, A. D. 1880. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said county, this Kighth day 
of November, A. D. 1880. 
[SEAL.] ADOLPHUS R. WHITEHEAD, County Clerk, 


EXHIBIT “VU,” 


COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE, | 
WEBER COUNTY, UTAH, | 
L. M. RICHARDS, Clerk. if 
OGDEN, NOV. 3, 1880. i 


Hon Arthur L. Thomas, Secretary of Utah Territory: 
Srir—The following are the names of the persons voted for, and the num- 


XXX 


ber of votes each received for the office named, at an election held in Weber 
County, Utah Territory, on the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, to-wit: 


FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. 


George Q. Cannon reCOiVed..........:0.sccessbescaset0 ssanestbsvsstsecsessed OOO WOLORS 
Allen G. Campbell received esses: sscadpdpdededaccuantect shtde.teutearsree eal O # 


I hereby certify that the above abstract is true and correct. 
Very respectfully, 
[SEAL. ] L. M. RICHARDS, 
Clerk County Court of Weber County. 
By C. UC. RicHarps, Deputy Clerk. 


EXHIBIT ‘V,” 


Abstract of votes polled at Brown’s Park Precinct, Uintah County, Utah, 
November 2, 1880. 
ASHLEY, UINTAH County, UTAH TERRITORY, ) 
November 13, 1880. 


This certifies that at a general election held at Brown’s Park Precinct, 
Uintah County, Utah Territory, on November 2, 1880, the whole amount 
of votes polled was 6, 


Office to be voted for—Delegate to Congress. 
Name of candidate, George Q. Cannon. 


We find upon counting said votes from thereturns of said election, the 
whole nuinber of votes cast was six, of which George Q. Cannon received 
‘six for the office of Delegate to Congress. 
We certify the above to be correct. 
[SEAL] THOMAS BINGHAM, Probate Judge. 
; W. C. Britt, County Clerk. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, } 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, - SS. 
SECRETARY’S OFFICE. J 


I, Arthur L. Thomas, Secretary of Utah Territory, do hereby certify that 
the foregoing pages, numbered one to twenty-seven inclusive, contain full, 
true and correct copies of all the returns received from the several counties, 
of the election held on the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, for Delegate 
to Congress, from the Territory of Utah. 

Attest: My hand and the Great Seal of the Territory, this 
Highth day of January, A. D. 1881. 
[SEAL.] ARTHUR L. THOMAS, 
Secretary of Utah Ter. 


I hereby acknowledge due service of the within notice of contest and 
exhibits by receiving a duplicate of within signed by contestant, this (4th) 


day of February, A. D. 1881, 
A, G, CAMPBELL. 


7 4 


CAMPBELLS KEPLY. 


SALT LAKE Ciry, UrTau, February 26th, 1881. 
George Q. Cannon, Lsq.: 


Srtr.—To your notice of January 20th, 1881, served on me on the 4th day 
of the present month, to the effect that you will contest my right to hold a 
seat in the House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of the 
United States as Delegate from the Territory of Utah, ete., I have the honor 
to answer in respect to the facts alleged by you, and to state the grounds on 
which I rest the validity of my election as follows: 


1. I admit that returns of the election of Delegate to the Forty-seventh 
Congress of the United States, held on the 2nd day of November, 1880, in the 
several counties of the Territory of Utah, were made to the Secretary of said 
Territory, of which copies are annexed to your notice and referred to therein 
as marked respectively, A, B, C, D, etc. But I deny that said returns 
showed, or that the fact was, that 18,568 votes were legally cast for you at 
said election, or that you were legally or otherwise elected to said office of 
Delegate from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, or enti- 
tled to receive the certificate of election, or to be enrolled, sworn, or other- 
wise in any manner recognized as such Delegate. 1 deny that said returns 
showed, or that the fact was, that I received less than one-thirteenth of the 
votes legally cast at said election, or that I was not entitled to hold the said 
office of Delegate from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-Seventh Congress, 
or to be enrolled and sworn as such Delegate, or to receive the certificate of 
election to said office. 

I deny that the action of the Governor of the Territory of Utah in with- 
holding the certificate of election from you, and in giving it to me, was ille- 
gal or fraudulent. 

And [allege as grounds of the foregoing denial and of my claim that 
my election was valid, as follows: 

1. Nostatute, Federal or Territorial, required or authorized said returns 
of said election to be placed before the Governor of said Territory; or that 
authorized or required him to open or inspect said returns as the whole or 
any part of the evidence, on which he was required to determine the result 
of said election, and this state of the law has been judicially declared in said 
Territory. 

2. Said returns do not disclose the names, sex or qualifications of the 
voters whose votes are therein aggregately stated. 

3. A large number of the voters who voted for you were females, and 
therefore not qualified to vote for members of the Legislative Assembly in 
said Territory, and consequently not qualified to vote for Delegate to Con- 
gress at said election. The number of such illegal votes can only be 
estimated, but such votes were given in all the counties in relatively large 
numbers, and are an undistinguishable part of the votes mentioned in each 
of said returns. 

4, You were not at the date of said election eligible or qualified, nor 
capable of being made eligible or qualified to be elected to, or to serve in, 
said office of Delegate, because you were borna subject of Great Britian, 


XX XIT 


and had never been naturalized as a citizen of the United States; you are 
not aman of good moral character; you are not attached to the principles 
of the Constitution of the United States, nor well disposed to the good order 
and happiness of the same; you have been for many yearsa polygamist, 
living and cohabiting with four women as wives, to whom you have joined 
yourself by a pretended ceremony of marriage; you do not loyally yield 
assent and obedience to the act of Congress against polygamy in the Terri- 
tories; you have for many years last past publicly endeavored to incite others 
to violate that statute in the Territory of Utah—therefore all the votes given 
for you at said election are void. 

5. Atthetime of said election on the second day of November, 1880, 
you were known throughout the Territory of Utah to bean alien and not 
eligible to said office of Delegate. All the persons voting for you were aware, 
and had full notice, that you were an alien unnaturalized, and disqualified 
to hold any office under the laws of the United States, or of any of the 
Territories thereof. 

6. Iama native born citizen of the United States and qualified by age 
and residence in said Territory to be elected at said election to said office of 
Delegate to the House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of 
the United States, and besides eight scattering votes cast at said election, I 
received all the legal votes given at said election for said office of Delegate 
in the Forty-seventh Congress from the Territory of Utah; that on the 8th 
day of January, 1881, the Governor of said Territory, in pursuance of the 
statute in such case made and provided, and in the due and regular exercise 
of the power in him vested, did declare and certify under his hand and the 
great seal of said Territory, that I was the person having the greatest num- 
ber of votes, and therefore duly elected as Delegate from said Territory 
to said Congress. 

Respectfully Yours, 
A. G. CAMPBELL. 


I hereby admit service of the within and foregoing notice to me directed 
by a copy delivered to me personally at Washington this the fifth day of 


March, A. D. 1881. 
GEO, Q. CANNON: 


CANNONS EVIDENCE. 


May 28th, 1881. 
Elias Smith sworn for George Q. Cannon. 


EXAMINED BY ARTHUR BROWN, ESQ. 


Q. Are you a citizen of the United States? A. Iam. 

Q. Native born or naturalized? A. Native born. 

O. How many years have you lived in the Territory of Utah? A. 
Nearly thirty. 

Q. Are yon acquainted with George Q. Cannon? A.Iam. 

O. How many years have you been acquainted with him? A. I think 
I made my first acquaintance with him in the year 1843. 

Q. Whereabouts? A. In the County of Hancock, State of Illinois, 
City of Nauvoo. 

Q. How long did you know him there? A. I knew him there from 
that time until the spring of 1846, the exact date I don’t remember when 
we parted. 

Q. Did you know him here in Utah? A. I did. 

QO. When did you first know him here? A. 1 first saw him here to the 
best of my remembrance in the month of November or December, 1854. 

Q. When did you yourself first come to Utah? A. I came to Utah in 
185 51—September 28th. 

Q. Did you in 1854 go with him to the District Court then presiding 
over Salt Lake County? A. To the best of my remembrance I did. 

Q Who was the Judge then presiding over that District Court? A. 
That is a matter I am not as positive about as I wish I was. I will have to 
refer to records. 

Q. Well, what would be your recollection now? A. From my recollec- 
tion, and from the information I obtained and derived within the last two 
or three years—it is a matter I had not thought anything about then—my 
impression is that Leonidas Shaver was. I once stated to the best of my 
knowledge that Judge Styles was here, but that remark was based upon a 
matter connected with Judge Snow’s history here, I was of the opinion 
that he succeeded him. 

* Q. Your impression is that Judge Shaver was then here? A. Yes, sir. 
O. Are you positive you went with Cannon to Court? A. That Tam 
positive of. 

Q, What would be your impression about its being on or about the 7th 
of December, 1854? My impression is from the information I have derived 
from looking’ at records in my possession and records I have made myself, 
that it was not far from that time, but the exact date I cannot find. 

Q. Of course you would not remember the exact date frcm your recol- 
lection? A. No sir. 

Q. But your recollection would be that it was in the neighborhood of 
that time? ‘A. Yes, sir; it was a short time after he arrived from Califor- 
nia. 

8 


XXXIV 


Q. On that day when you went with Cannon, was Court open doing 
business? A. It was. 

Q. What was your errand with Mr. Cannon there that day? A. Mr. 
Cannon on his arrival here from California 

Campbell’s counsel object to the form of the question—let him state 

what he did. 
Q. State what was your errand there—what did you go for? A. I 
went there as a witness for Mr. Cannon, that I had been acquainted with 
him from boyhood when he came to this country. 

Q. You went there as a witness to his naturalization? A. Yes sir. 

O. When you arrived in Court, what did you do, or what was done in 
your hearing relative to that matter j ? 

Objected to, as what was done in Court must bea matter of record, and 
cannot be proved by any parol testimony. 

A. I arrived there in Court, and the usual proceedings -— 

Judge McBride for Campbell—State what was done? 

A. Mr. Cannon presented himself there to become a citizen of the 
United States, the usual oath was administered to me in relation to his 
residence here, how long had I known him. 

Q. You were sworn, you remember that? A. Yes sir. 

QO. Who asked you the questions, if anvbody? A. I could not posi- 
tively say whether it was the Judge or the Cierk. I think it was the Clerk 
asked the questions. 

Q. Do you remember whether you stated your acquaintance with Can- 
non and what you knew about his living in this country? A. I told my 
acquaintance just exactly as it occurred. 

Q. Was any other witness there besides you? A. There was. 

O. Who was it?) A. One Joseph Cain. 

O. How long had you known him? A. About the same time I had 
Mr. Cannon. I don’t know which of them I made the acquaintance of 
first. 

Q. Do you know whether he was, or whether he stated at that time 
that he was a citizen of the United States? A. Mr. Cain? 

O--Yes. “Ay He so Stated, 

O. Do you know whether he was sworn or not? A. He was. 

Q. Was he enquired of? 

All this part of the testimony is taken under the objection of counsel 
for Mr. Campbell. 

Q. Was he enquired of after being sworn? A. He was. 

O. Was Mr. Cannon enquired of? A. He was. 

O. After you had both been enquired of, did the Court say or do any. 
thing—the Judge of the Court, I mean, by the Court? 

Objected to on the same round? 

Agay 65 Sit. 

Q. What did he say or do—what action did he announce? A. He 
directed the Clerk to administer the oath to Mr Cannon. 

Q. Did he say anything as to what oath it was? Or what order was 
made in the premises? A. "Now I could not positively state the exact 
words. 

Q. Did he in substance say whether he declared him a citizen of the 
United States? A. I so understood him. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Cannon thereupon did take the oath? 
A. He did take the usual oath of allegiance, renouncing all allegiance to 
any foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty, especially Vic- 
toria, Queen of Great Britain. 


XXXV 


Q. Do you know whether this Joseph Cain, who was a witness, with 
you, is living or not? A. He is not. 

OF How do you know otherwise? A. I helped inter his body in the 
ground. 

Q. Do you know whether this Leonidas Shaver, who was at one time 
judge of this court, is living or not? A. He is not. 

Q. How do you know otherwise? <A. I helped deposit his remains 
in the ground. 

Q. Do you remember who was the Clerk of the Court that day? A. 
Vasa eeu agile 

. Who was it? A. One William I. Appleby. 

6 How long had you known him? A. From my arrival in this coun- 
try, or a few days afterwards. 

Q. Knew him well? A. Knew him well—intimately. Knew him by 
reputation before I saw him. 

Q. Did you have business with hm after you came? A. Many atime. 

O. Is he living or dead? A. He is dead. 

O. Did you attend his funeral also? A. I believe I attended his fu- 
neral. 1 know he is dead. 

Judge McBride—We admit he is dead. 

QO. What position did you hold at that time? A. I held the office of 
Probate Judge of Salt Lake County. 

Q. How was that situated, as to the place where the Court was then 
held locally? A. My office was in the same building with his. 

Q. State whether it had been a common thtng “for you to attend for 
people you were acquainted with and act as witness to their naturalization? 
A. I have in several instances, and as it was next door to mine I was fre- 
quently in there. 

Q. Had you frequently seen the process of naturalization? A. Time and 
time and time again. 

Q. State whether the formula that was gone through with you and the 
other witness and Mr.Cannon on that day was as you had usually observed 
it? A. Precisely the same. I was very familiar with the formula, had been 
present many atime, and to the best of my knowledge everything was 
done precisely according to the form. 

Q. What was the name of the Conrt then presiding over Salt Lake 
County? A. I could not tell whether it was the First, Second or Third 
District Court. 

Q. Do you know whether or not it was at one time called the First 
District Court? A. It was at one time called the First District Court. I 
cannot tell what year it was, it was re-districted. It was re-districted 
several times, and finally became the Third District. 

Q. You have seen this man Appleby write, have vou? <A. Often. 

O. I would like you to look at a paper marked by ‘the Notary for identi- 
fication, Exhibit “Z,” and tell me if that signature, the words “‘W. I. Apple- 
by,” is in your judgment the genuine hand- -writing of the gentleman you 
name as Clerk? A. It is the : signature of W. I. Appleby. 

Q. That is his genuine hand- writing? A. Yes, that is his genuine 
hand-writing. 

QO. Now look at the seal. Do you know whether that was the seal he 
commonly used at that time? A. I could notsay. I presume I have seen 
Mr. Appleby’s signature to a hundred documents. 

Q. Was he Clerk of any other Court at that time? A. I think he was 
Cleik of the Supreme Court. 


XAXVI 


Q. Did yeu wait to see whether Cannon received any certificate that 
day or not? A. I don’t think I did, for I was in a hurry, and I paid no at- 
tention to ihe: arrangements between him and the Clerk. 


CROSS-EXAMINED BY JUDGE MC BRIDE. 


Q. How Jong had Mr. Cannon been in the Territory, to your know- 
ledge, before the day this naturalization took place? A. At that particular 
time he had not been here many days. 

° About how long? A. Well. I should think less than ten days. 

Do you know of any reason for those proceedings at that time— 
any meal reason? <A. I don’t know that I do know any special reason 
for it. 

Q. What age was Mr. Cannon when you first knew him? A. Some 
twelve or fourteen years. 

Q. Living with his parents at that time? A. Yes, sir; his father was 
living, his mother, I learned from him and family, was dead, on her pas- 
sage “to this country. 

©. How long since vou had known him personally in the United 
States prior to the time that he returned in 185 54? What was the interval 
between your personal acquaintance with him ‘and that time? A. Mr. Can- 
non was ae apprentice employed in the printing office at Nauvoo that I had 
charge o 

Q. What year was that? A. The year 1843—it would be about the be- 
ginning of the year 1846. 

Q. Now, when did you part after that? A. Well, in the break-up 
there at Nauvoo, when our people left there for the West. I left the 
office there something about the last of the year 1845. I remained there un- 
til May roth, or rith, 1846, when I left. 1 think Mr. Cannon left there 
before I did. I cannot tell the date when he left. 

Q. When did you see him next? A. I saw him here in this valley 
next time I saw him. 

Q. At what’time? A. In he year 1854. 

QO. Then from the time you parted with ‘him in Illinois in 1845 or 1846, 
until you saw him here in 1854, you did not meet? A. Not personally. 

Q. During that time do you know whether he was living in the United 
States? A. I had every reason to believe he was living in the United 
States. 

Q. Were you aware of the fact that he had been absent in the Sand- 
wich Islands for some three or four years of that time? A. I can tell you 
my source of knowledge. 

Q. I say, had you any information on that subject? A. I had. 

QO. From thatintormation, was it true he had been residing in the 
Sandwich Islands? A. He had been temporarily residing in the Sandwich 
Islands. When I came here he was one of the first men I inquired 
about. 

Q. Do you know what time he resided there from any declaration of 
his own? A. I don’t know that J could tell. 

Q. About what time? A. I think in 1850—that is my opinion—or 
1851 he left. 

Q. Were you aware of that fact at the time you were one of the wit- 
nesses? A. I was aware of the facts in relation to it and the circum- 
stances. 

(). What position did you occupy at that time? A. Probate Judge. 


Pe. 


AON ES. 


Q. And have been from that time to this? A. Yes sir; and was also 
postmaster in Salt Lake City. 

Q. At the time that this naturalization took place, as stated by you, 
state whether or not that Court was naturalizing citizens also? A. It was 
not. 

Q. When did it begin naturalizing citizens—in the Probate Court? A. 
Sometime after that. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Cannon was a married man at that 
time, having a family? A. I havereasonto believe he was not a mar- 
ried man. I think he became a married man soon after. I could not tell 
what date. 

Q. Do you know. whether he was a man of family before 
ne went tothe Sandwich Islands or not? A. He never was married to 
my knowledge until after that time. 

Q. Do you know from any declaration of his own what business he 
was engaged in in the Sandwich Islands? A. I knew very well. 

Q. I will ask you to state his own declarations as to what business 
he was engaged inin the Sandwich Islands? A. I have every reason to 
believe from his letters—communications from him—he was there as a 
missionary with others. 

Q. Do you know whether or not he was under any order or direc- 
tion from any central authority here? A. I don’t know that he was there 
under any particular order. 1 had understood before I got here that he 
had been designated as a missionary to the Sandwich Islands, having been 
in California at the time. 

Q. You understood him to have been sentthere as a missionary in 
the way in which missionaries were sent from here at that time? A. 
Yes, sir; if there is any coercion it is designated in that. 

Q. That is not what I asked. A. I understood that he went there by 
request. 

Q. Judge, have you any distinct recollection of this proceeding before 
the District Court—I mean now independent of anything else except your 
recollection? A. Nothing only my recollection. 

Q. Have you any distinct recollection about it? A I remember going 
there and I remember his speaking to me about it. 

Q. Could you tell anything about what the oath was that was admip- 
istered if you had not seen any of the papers? A. From my acquaintance 
with the laws of the United States, and the proceedings that were had in 
admitting citizens of the United States, I understood and know that all the 
proceedings there were strictly in accordance with the laws of the United 
States. 1 remember being there at those proceedings. 

Q. Is it not about this, that you recollect being there and being a 
witness on the application for naturalization. Have you any distinct 
recollection as to what took place other than that tact? A. I have stated 
and will state the facts again. Mr. Cannon, after his arrival here from 
California, told me, as I had often heard him speak before about his being 
a citizen of the United States, that he was now here and wanted to become 
a citizen, and as I had been acquainted with him he asked me if I would 
be a witness for him. I said yes. Hecalled onme. The District Court 
was held there, and the postoffice, and my office in the building. I was 
the manager of the Deseret News office, which was onthe opposite corner, 
and was backwards and forwards to those offices many times a day, and 
my impression is that I was passing between those offices, on the way to 
the Deseret News office, when he called me. I was not there but a few 
minutes. 


XXX VIIT 


Q. Do youremembei any of the questions that were asked on that 
occasion? A. I know that the usual questions were asked me. 

Q. What do you mean by the usual questions? A. The questions 
that are usually asked of applicants and witnesses when a person makes 
application to become a citizen of the United States. 

Q. Were you asked the question whether Mr. Cannon had resided in 
the United States for five years next preceding his application? A. I told 
the circumstances just as they were. 1 was asked how long I had been 
acquainted with him. 

Q. Were you asked as to whether Mr. Cannon had resided for the five 
years preceding in the United States? <A. 1| wish to tell the circumstances 
how I knew it. 

Q. You said you had known him for a number of years? A. Yes, 
sir. 

OQ. Were you asked whether he had resided in the limits of the United 
States at that time for five years next preceding. A. I wish to tell the cir- 
cumstances just exactly as they were. 

Q. Did you state that he had been abroad for four years’ preceding? 
A. I told him he had been abroad for four vears in the Sandwich Islands 
as a missionary. I knew from having received communications from him 
time and time again. 

ony Ou did not know personally—yvyou had not been in this interval at 
the Sandwich Islands? A. I will say that I received letters from him 

Q. That satisfied your A. Yes, sir; I knew they were letters that 
were mailed to me from him. 

Q. Were you in the Sandwich Islands during this interval? A. I was 
not, of course. I hada brother there anda cousin there. I was in com- 
munication with them as well as I was with him. 

©. You say you stated these facts? A. I stated the facts—that is my 
knowledge, and being acquainted with him, and when I had been 
acquainted with him. 

Q. Did you state he was abroad in the Sandwich Islands? A. I think 
I was asked if I knew he had been there. I think I said, to the best of my 
knowledge, he had been temporarily absent on a mission. 

OF You were aware that at the time of this application for naturaliza- 
tion he had not lived in this country even for the year next preceding? A. 
I knew the circumstances just as I have stated, that he had been there. I 
had not seen him here. I had understood from communications from him 
and his friends that he came here, went from here to California, and from 
there he had been requested to go to the Sandwich Islands on a mission. 

Q. How long had you known Mr. Cain? A. I knew Mr. Cain— upon 
reflection I think I got acquainted with Mr. Cannon a little before I got 
acquainted with Mr. Cain. I don’t know and can’t state positively whether 

it was 1843 or 1844 that I first got acquainted with Mr. Cain, but I think in 
1843, both the same year. 

Q. Do you remember any questions being asked Mr. Cain about his 
acquaintance with Mr. Cannon? A. I can, possibly. I don’t know 
whether he was questioned as to the year. 

Q. You remember that he was a witness? A. He was there—went 
with me. 

Q. Do you know whether he was a native or naturalized citizen? A. 
I understood him to be a naturalized citizen. I understood he was a native 
of the Isle of Man. He had been in this Territory most of the time for five 
years. When we broke up in Nauvoo my recollection is that Mr. Cain 


XXXIX 


went to England before I left the Mississippi river—before I left Nauvoo. 
1 did not know much about him then, as I came to this western country. 
Communications between here and the States were not very frequent. On 
my way across the plains | think I had Jearned that Mr. Cain had been in 
California, and when I came here he was one of the first men 1 met. He 
had returned. 

Q. Now. was that the first you saw him? A. On the 28th of Septem- 
ber, 1851. I saw him. 

Q. From that time up to these proceedings in the Court, when he was 
a witness for Mr. Cannon, do you know where Mr. Cain resided? A. I 
had every reason to believe he resided here. 

Q. Did you see him at intervals during that time? A. After I got here 
we met every day. 

Q. About what aged man was he? A. Well, at the time I arrived in 
this country I think he was about thirty. 

Q. How long has he been dead? A. He died, I think, in the year 
1855. 

; XE You think on a former occasion you did testify that Judge Styles 
was presiding? A. 1 think I was asked the question. I commenced 
reflecting about the matter. I knew that Judge ‘Styles succeeded Judge 
BaeY here, and Judge Snow being younger, like myself, than he is now, 

e used to occasionally joke him about his being turned out of office. I 
(heap ht Styles succeeded him on the bench here, Dut that is a thing I could 
not positively State. 

Q. You have undertaken to refresh your memory by reference to 
records’ -A. Yes. 

Q. What records? A. Little diary I kept. 

QO. Did you in this little diary make any entry of this naturalization 
proceeding? A. No, sir; I think not. My diary was kept more with 
reference to my own aflairs—with reference to where 1 was and what I 
was doing, etc. It was very brief. 

Q. Have you seen or examined any records, or what purport to Le 
records, of this proceeding? A. I have not. 

@. Have gon seen this certificate before that was presented, signed by 
Mr. Appleby? A. If I have, I don’t remember when I may have seenit. 

Q. By saying you referred to records, you meanta record of your own? 
A. Yes, sir; the circumstances and events that transpired; the arrival and 
departure of the mail was one of those things. When my attention was 
first called to this matter, I was of the opinion that Mr. Cannon came 
after the mail 

Q. What is your recollection of the time he arrived here? A. It was 
after the arrival of the mail some days 

Q. I am speaking now with reference to the date? A. My opinion is 
somewhere about the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth of November. 1 
made a note of the arrival of the mail and the persons with it. The arrival 
of the mail in those days was a very important time in this country, when 
we hada mail once a month Fast and West. When the mail arrived, 
generally every body quit business and went to see what was going on out. 
side. I was postmaster here and mace a note of the persons that came as 
passengers. 


REED TRE Cis 


Q. When you say missionary, you mean missionary of the Mormon 
Church, I suppose? A. Yes, sir; 1 do. 


XL 


Q. State whether the Mormon Church then had its headquarters at 
Salt Lake City? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I mean by then from 1849 to 1854? A. Yes, sir. 

O. When missionaries were sent out then from the Mormon Church, 
was it expected they would return here to Salt Lake City as the head cen- 
tre? A. Always. 

Q. State whether those missionaries generally treated and considered 
this place as their home—this country as their home? <A. Always. 

Q. Or this Territory? A. Always. 

O. Counsel asked as to declarations of Mr. Cannon as to where he had 
been when he asked you to be a witness for him—did he make any declara- 
tions to you as to whether he had always considered this place as his home 
or not? 

Objected to as incompetent. 

A. I don’t know whether he said anything about it or not. I knew 
from his communications to me that that was his intention. I don’t know 
anything any otherwise. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Cannon’s family, friends and kindred, 
and if so, what kindred and what relatives were here? A. His brothers 
and sisters were here. 

Q. Younger sisters and brothers, or older? A. All younger than he. 

O. How many of them? A. His oldest sister is the wife of Mr. Lam- 
bert. I was well acquainted with her. 

Q. How many of them were there? A. Five, or six, or seven—some- 
where along there. I could think them all up, for I have seen them all 
since I have been in this country. 


James W. Cummings, sworn for George Q. Cannon. 
EXAMINED BY ARTHUR BROWN, ESQ. 


Q: You live in Utah? A. I live in Utah. 

O. Have you ever held the position of clerk of any of its Courts? A. 
I have held the position of Clerk of the Probate and County Court of Salt 
Lake County, and also of the District Court of this district. 

Oe When was you Clerk of this district? A. I succeeded William I. 
Appleby. I cannot tell the exact date. The records will show. 

Q. What name was the district in number? A. It was, if I recollect 
right, the Third District Court, but I would not swear positively to it, be- 
cause it has been changed. 

Q. Do you know whether it had ever been called the First District 
Court! Ay Yes, Sir ; it had. 

Q. Did you receive some of the records from Mr. Appleby? A. I 
received Mr. Appleby’s records at the time. 

Q. Was he living when he turned them over to you? A. Yes, sir. 

QO. You know of his death? A. Yes, sir; I was at his funeral. 

O. Do you know his hand-writing? A. Yes, sir; we had our office in 
the same room for sometime and I frequently saw him write and frequently 
saw it in comparing documents. 

Q. Look at Exhibit “*Z”-—what do you sav to the words at the bottom, 
Weal: Appleby, being his hand-writing? A. That is his signature. I could 
swear to it anyw here. 

Q. How about the body of that certificate? A. Well, sir; it is his 
writing. 


XLI 


Q. Were you familiar with the seal of the Court? A. I was, sir. 

O. What would you say about that being one of the former seals of 
the Court? A. That is one of the former seals of the Court. I had that 
in my possession. 

Q. That same seal? A. Yes, sir; it was the first seal that was made. 
It was made here. 

Q. On the back of Exhibit “Z” won’t you read to Mr. Patterson the 
endorsement and tell me whose hand-writing that endorsement is in, on 
the back of Exhibit ‘‘Z?” A. ‘““George Q. Cannon’s certificate of citizen- 
ship, December 7th, 1854.” That is the writing of W. I. Appleby. 

Q. Read the further endorsement at the middle, if youcan? A. ‘‘Re- 
corded i in Record ‘A’ of Naturalizations, Folio 585, W. I. Appleby, 
Clerk. 

Q. Whose handwriting is all that endorsement in? A. Itisin W. I. 
Appleby’s; the man that wrote the body of it and the man that was Clerk 
of the Court at the time. I know, because I was associated with him so 
closely, being both in the same office part of the time. 


CROSS-EXAMINED BY JUDGE MCBRIDE. 


Q. Was there any other seal of the District Court except the one on 
that document? A. | think not; at least that was the first. What there 
was afterwards I cannot say. 

Q. When you were Clerk was that the seal that was used? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Who was the Judge under whom you served as Clerk? A. At 
what time? 

Q. Atany time? A. Judge Shaver was Judge, if my memory serves 
me correctly, when the paper was made out,and if I recollect correctly 
Judge Snow succeeded him here in this district, but I am not positive 
about it. 

Q. Who was Judge at the time you were Clerk? A. Judge Snow. 

O. Was not that prior to Judge Shaver? A. I don’t know but what 
he was prior to him, and afterwards too; I cannot say. 

Q. Was not you the Clerk while Judge Sinclair was upon the bench? 
A. I think I was‘a portion of the time. I was not Clerk but a short time 
after he came. 

Q. Do you remember what year you were Clerk? A. I could not'say 
now. It was 1855 I think—13855 and part of 1856. 

Q. Was Appleby ever Clerk after you, do youknow? A. I think not, 
but I would not say that positively. “There was considerable changing 
about. The Courts had but little to do except naturalization, or some- 
thing like that. At that time the law gave the Probate Court jurisdiction 
‘of naturalization equally with the District Court. When I was first ap- 
pointed Clerk of the Probate Court I had records and issued certificates of 

naturalization, untilit was held that the law was not valid. I issued quite 
a number of certificates as Clerk of the Probate Court, before the law was 
rejected by Congress. 

Q. That was during the time when the Probate Courts held that they 
had jurisdiction? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you ever Clerk of the Stipreme Court?’ “A. No, sir: 


XLII 


Zerubbabel Snow, sworn for George Q. Cannon. 
EXAMINED BY ARTHUR BROWN, ESQ. 


Q. Youreside in Utah, do you? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many years have you lived here? A. Since July, 1851. 

Q. What is your business? A. The profession of the law. 

Q. Have you been a Judge on the bench a part of the time since you 
have.been here? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Judge of what Court? A. I was appointed Associate Justice of 
the Supreme Court of the Territory by President Fillmore. Arrived 
here in July, 1851. A proclamation was made by the Governor assigning 
the districts, and I was first assigned to one that was north of here. 
eee ta in October of that year, I came to this city and sat in this 

istrict. 

Q. In 1854, who was Clerk of the Supreme Court of this Territory? 
A. William I. Appleby. 

Q. Who was Clerk of the District embracing Salt Lake County? A. 
William I. Appleby. 

Q. What was the name of that district as it then stood,fin 1854? A. I 
will have to refer to the statute. 

_ Ask you to state if you know when the First District was formed, 
and where the statute is to be found creating it, and if you have it you may 
state when it was changed, and where that statute changing it is to be 
found? <A. Itis my recollection that the Governor formed the First Dis- 
trict by a proclamation under the Organic law, and this was the first ac- 
cording to my recollection, according to the statute. I have the statute of 
the first session of the Legislative Assembly of this Territory; the first act 
passed is found on page 37 of the laws of that session; it was approved 
October 4th, 1851. Salt Lake County at that time was embraced in that 
deena It would be more difficult for me to find when the change was 
made. 

Q. What is your recollection of when the change was made? A. Itis 
my recollection that the change was not made until some years after. 

Q. 1857 or 1858, somewhere along there, would ,you say? A. Yes, I 
should think it was as late as that. 

Q. What would be your recollection of the time? A. I continued Judge 
in that district until September, 1854, and the Legislature did not eerie 
meet until] after that. It was the First District in 1854. 

Q. Do you know whether, when you was Judge of the District Court in 
Salt Lake County, it had been the practice to keep naturalizations ina book 
separate from the general journals of the Court? 

Objected to as incompetent and improper. 

Q. It is my recollection that Judge Brandenberry appointed Mr. Apple- 
by Clerk of the Court. In October, 1854, Mr. Appleby came to me and 
spoke to me about getting a printed record for naturalizations; told me it 
was the practice in New Jersey where he had come from, and showed me a 
copy of what he wanted to have printed. I examined that copy and did 
not perceive any reason why it was not correct. I told him he might get 
some of them printed. I don’t think there was ever any journal entry made 
by me as Judge to that effect. If there was I don’t recollect it. 

Q. It was a private talk between you and your Clerk? A. Yes, sir; it 
was a private talk, and he afterwards showed me the book he had got. 

Q. I show you Exhibit ‘‘Z”—whose hand-writing is the written part of 
thatin? A. Mr. William I. Appleby’s. 


XLII 


Q. Are you familiar with his hand-writing? A. Yes, sir; I was famil- 
iar with it from the fall of 1851 to the fall of 1854. 

Q. How about the signature? A. I have no doubt that is his signa- 
ture. I have no doubt the whole of the written part is in his hand-writing. 

Q. His genuine hand-writing? A. I have no doubt itis allin his hand- 
Sens so far as the writing is concerned; the printed matter is another 
thing. 

O. Look at that seal, and state whether you recognize that as being 
the seal of the old District Court which comprised Salt Lake County. A. 
Well, that is my recollection of the seal; yes, there is the eagle, there is 
the bee hive, and there are the arrows. What I should call the left eagle 
wing is plainer than the other. The right eagle wing is not so plain. 

Q. You call that the seal? A. I have no doubt of it myself. Ifwould 
state that Mr. Shaver would succeed me instead of Mr. Styles. Mr. Shaver 
would succeed me, coming after September, and until the next Legislative 
Assembly would meet, which would be the time of the date of this certifi- 
cate, Exhibit ‘‘Z.” On the 7th of December Leonidas Shaver would be on 
the bench. 


CROSS-EXAMINED BY JUDGE MCBRIDE. 


Q. At what time did you go off the bench? A. My term expired Sep- 
tember 30th, 1854. That is my recollection of the date of its expiration. 

Q. You were not then Judge at the time this certificate purports to 
have been issued? A. No, sir; I was not. 

' Q. Who did you say succeeded you? A. Leonidas Shaver would be 
the one. 

Q. Do you know whether he is living or not? A. He is not living. 

Q. Do you know when Appleby ceased to be Clerk? <A. No, sir; he 
was Clerk when I went off the bench, and he continued to be Clerk for a 
considerable length of time after, but I am not able to state the precise 
time. If I should be able to tell, it would be from some records. 

Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Cannon in 1854? A. I became ac- 
quainted with Mr. Cannon about that time, but Iam not able to give the 
precise date. 

Q. Do you know whether he had been living in Salt Lake or in this 
Territory prior to 1854? A. No; all I should have any distinct recollec- 
iton about wonld be what general report would say. 

Q. Well, did you know him in this Territory before 1854? A. No, sir; 
I have no precise recollection of knowing him before that time. 

Q, Did you ever know him prior to that time? A. No, I don’t know 
that | did., 

Q. You had been in the Territory some three years? A. I came in 
1851, and I had remained here up to that time—had resided in this city. 

Q. Do you know about the time he came to this city to reside, of your 
own knowledge? A. No; I say I have no recollection of the precise time 
that he came here, or the precise time I became acquainted wiih him, but 
it was quite a little period after I came. 

Q. Was it earlier than the year 1854? A. I should not be willing to 
say it was. I should not from my recollection be able to fix any date. 

Q. Was he a man of family when you first knew him, do you recollect 
about that—whether he was a married man or not, and had a home or fami- 
ly? A. No, I could not say as to that, but I havea recollection of learning 
quite early concerning his marriage to a Miss Hoagland. That is my 
recollection. 


XLIV 


£E, T. Sprague recalled. 
EXAMINED BY ARTHUR BROWN, ESQ. 


Q. In the testimony yon gave the other day you fully described a book 
containing George Q. Cannon’s naturalization. ‘I ask you further, by wa 
of description, if the letter “A” in very large letters is marked on the bac 
of that book in ink? A. Yes, it is. 

Q. On the back does it also appear in printed letters ‘‘Record of Na- 
turalization??? A. Yes, somewhat indistinct. 

Q. On what page of that book, Record of Naturalization “A,” does the 
naturalization of George Q. Cannon appear? A. 585. 

Q. Have you compared that with the paper shown you, Exhibit “Z”? 
A. Ihave. 

QO, How does Exhibit ‘‘Z” differ from the record at page 585 of which 
you have attached a copy to your testimony? A. In the “second line the 
second blank, which in the book is filled with the words “Queen Victoria,” 
in the certificate shown me is filled with the words “Victoria, Queen of 
Great Britain and Ireland.” In the book, in place of the seal, are the let- 
ters L. S. enclosed in brackets, and on the certificate is what purports to 
be the seal of the First District Court of Utah. Those are the only 
differences I find. 

Cross-examination waived. 


June Ist, 1881. 
Benjamin F. Johnson, sworn for Geo. Q. Cannon. 


EXAMINED BY ARTHUR BROWN, ESQ. 


Q. Where do you reside? <A. I reside in Utah. 
©. On afarm’ SAs) Yes: 
Q. Seventy miles si) from here? A. Seventy-two and a half. 
O.iIn Utah CountyrnA: \yY es,isirs 

QO. How long have you been a resident of Utah County? A. Since 
October, 1848. 

OF Do you know George Q. Cannon? A. I knew him in 1849. 

O. Where? A. Here in Utah. I knew him also in Nauvo 
saw him many times there as a boy. 


O. “After that, did you see him at one time in the Sandwich - Talantae 
A. Yes. 


What was your errand there? A. I went as a missionary. 
. For the Mormon Church? A. For the Church of Latter-day Saints. 
. What was his business there? A, He was a missionary. 
. For what? A. For the same Church. 
How near to him did you stop while you were there and while he 
was there? A. The first few weeks we were on different Islands. After 
my residence there a short time he came to Honolulu. Our room was to- 
gether, and our bed commonly together, and we were immediately associ- 
ated for many months. 

Q. When was it you first saw him in the Sandwich Islands? A. The 
fore part of January, 1853. 

How long did you room with him? A. I would have to consult my 

journal for that. 

Q. Well, about how long? <A. A number of months; IJ think about a 
year—in the neighborhood ofa year and probably more than that. 


coe 


XLV 


Q. Did you talk with him every day? A. Every day, nnless we were 
divided for a short period on business pertaining to our mission. 

Q. Did you ever hear him use any expression as to what place he re- 
garded as his home? A. Yes, all the time, I might say. It was the lead- 
ing feeling between us. 

Q. What were the expressions you heard him make use of ? 

Objected to as incompetent. 

A. When I first met George Q. Cannon it was in our first Conference 
meeting. There was nine of us that went together, and there was a num- 
ber, about five, that were already there previous to our going. We got, in 
a few days after our arrival, into what we called a mission Conference of all 
the Elders from Utah. 

Q. Nine of you? A. All that were on the Islands. There was nine of 
us went together and there was some there before. Brother Cannon said 
he felt as if he had been there a good long while—a number of years, had 
acquired the language and translated the Book of Mormon, and he felt as 
though he ought to go home. But we were young, oreen, unacquainted 
with the lang uage and the people, and he was the leading spirit that was 
there. We ‘said, “Brother Cannon, we cannot let you go, we must have 
you here with us,’ ’ and it was the feeling of the Conference that he should 
stay, and he consented to stay. The vote of the Conference, what we 
would call the authority of the Conference, voted for him to stay. 

Q. Did he use the expression, “going home?” A. Going home 
was always the expression with us all. 

Q. Did he use it? A. He used it, he always used it. 

Q. Did he indicate in any manner what locality he meant by home? 
A. Certainly, Utah—Salt Lake City was his home. 

Q. After that, when you roomed with him, did he allude to any place 
as his home? A. It was our general subject. It was with me. 

Q. You are not on trial, he is. A. This was his common conversation 
—home i in Salt Lake, wanting to go home as soon as the duties of his mis- 
sion permitted him to go. 

Q. How frequently did he speak to you, while you roomed with hfm, 
of Utah, Salt Lake City, as his home? A. Tf I should guess— 

Q. What is your best recollection? A, According to my best recol- 
lection, there was more days that he spoke of it more than once where 
ieee Was never a day that he missed saying something in regard to coming 
1ome. 

Q. You would say, then, he spoke of it as oftenasonceaday? A. I 
know I did, and we were very much alike. 

Sz How about him? A. I think he spoke of it every day while we 
were together for months. 

Q. Do you know what kept him there after youarrived? A. I know 
that the duties he felt that he owed to his mission kept him there. That 
was his expression. 

Q. Do you know whether he desired on any other occasion than this 
you have narrated, of those engaged with him in the labor to return to 
Utah? A. I never heard him express a desire that I can call to mind for 
anything in relation to returning, but to go home and live with his friends 
and marry the wife of his youth, and be at home in Salt Lake City, or in 
Utah. I know he showed me letters that he was writing to his friends 
and to a young lady that he was courting, promising to return home just as 
soon as he was exonerated from the duties of his mission. 

Q. Was he kept there by anything that was said by the other members 


XLVI 


of the Church there? A. Well, left to himself he would, I have no doubt, 
have returned home, but the presidency of the mission required him to 
stay there, or otherwise by the vote of the Conference which required him, 
asked him, and urged him to stay. 

Q. Was there a local President of that mission? A. There was. 

Q. Who was it? A. Philip D. Lewis. 

Q. Is he living or dead? A. He is dead. 

Q, Did he say anything about his staying? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the nature of it—requiring him to stay? A. Requiring 
him to stay. 

All this testimony is subject to objection as hearsay and incompetent. 

Witness—I might just say, if you get my idea clearly, it is expected of 
us to go on missions as Latter-day Saints, that we be controlled by the Con- 
ference under the presidency of that mission to which you go. 

Q. That branch of the business? A. We call them Conferences, and 
every mission is a Conference. 

Q. And that branch of the business, that presidency or Conference 
voted for him to stay there? A. Yes, sir; he would have done something 
that was not expected if he had gone home. It was not expected he would 
go without being released. I know he did not voluntarily stay. 

Q. At what season did he start to return? A. I would have to consult 
my journal for that, but I think it was in July. 

Q. Can you tell the season of the year? A. I think in the summer 
season. 

Q. What season? A. 1854. 


CROSS-EXAMINED BY JUDGE MCBRIDE. 


Q. Where did you first know Mr. Cannon? A. As a boy I knew him 
in Nauvoo. 

Q. About what time was that? A. That was in 1846—1845 and 1846. 
” 2: Did you afterwards know him in Utah? A. I knew him here in 

tah. 

Q. At what time was he here? A. In the fall of ’49 I think. I don’t 
know that I would say positively. I know that he came to me to get outfits, 
or something pertaining to his going West, when he started to California. 
But I had not seen him many times—was not intimately acquainted with 
him, or associated or connected with him in any way, only I had seen him. 
He was ten years younger than me. Hs was rather boyish. He was not 
an associate of mine then. 

Q. Do you know when he left here togo West? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect about what time that was? A. I think it was in 
the fall of 1849. | 

Q. When youmet him again it was in the Sandwich Islands? A. Yes. 

Q. That you say was in 1853? A. Yes. 

Q. Between those dates you had not seen him? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you know by anything he said when you met him where he had 
been?’ A’ Yes; 

- You may state if you know by any expression that he made? A. 
He used to tell me, that he, with others of his associates, went into the 
mines and mined it a while to get means to go, and I often saw things—for 
instance, he bought him a very fine lever watch that he procured with 
means he had got from the mines, and his outfitand passage money. I 
have heard him allude to it in that way. 

Q. Where had he been after he procured his outfit—where did he go? 
A. He went to the Sandwich Islands. 


XLVII 


Q. Did you understand from him, when you met him there, how long 
he had been in the Islands? A. Well, now; I understood that he had come 
direct from San Francisco after leaving the mining camps, that he came 
directly there ona mission that was appointed to him to go-—obtained his 
outfit, etc., and came directly over on a mission, and 1 have often heard 
him tell in relation to the progress of the mission, how soon he learned the 
language, how soon he commenced his translations, etc. 

Q. How long would that have been that he was in the Islands ahout? 
A. | think he went from here in the fall, and I think the next fall he went 
over. 

Q. That would be the fall of 1850 then? A. Yes; I think he had been 
there from 1850, some two years or more, when I got there. 

OQ. You say he was engaged as a missionary—from any declarations 
that he made during the time he was there, did he go there as a missionary 
sent for that purpose by the authorities here or anywhere else? A. I 
always heard him represent that he did, and I know that the authorities of 
our Church considered it so, because I know they talked of it and wrote 
to us and instructed our company before we went in that fnanner. 

Q. I am speaking now of him—do you know from any declarations he 
econ A. Yes, I know he did make that declaration that he was sent 
there. 

Q. Isit not the habit of the Latter-day Saints to speak of Utahas 
their home everywhere abroad? A. I guessit is. 

Q. Is itnot taught, that where they can, with any convenience, it is 
their duty to gather with the balance of the brethren here in Utah? A. 
That is one feature of our peculiarities in our gathering together. 

Q. And this has been considered from 1850 as the point at which they 
are expected to gather, those who can? A. It has always been to me, 
and all that seemed to feel as I did, Utah was home. 

Pes What age was Mr. Cannon at that time, about? A. I think he was 
a0rOT 27. 

Q. Was he a married man at thattime? A. Oh, no, I think we com- 
pared ages and I think I was about ten years older than he was, and I 
think I was about 37. He was 26 or 27. 

Q. Did I understand you he translated the Book of Mormon into the 
Hawaiian language? A. Yes, sir. 


COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. 


I, Adam S. Patterson, a Notary Public in and for said Salt Lake 
County, do hereby certify that the witnesses in the foregoing deposition 
named were by me duly sworn'to testify the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, in the said cause; that said depositions were taken 
at the time mentioned therein at my office in Salt Lake City and County; 
that pursuant to the annexed stipulation the said depositions were taken 
phonographically by me and afterwards written out. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name 
and affixed my sealof office this 30th day of June, 1881. 
AmoePATYERSON, 
[SEAL. | Notary Public in and for Salt Lake County, Utah. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, \ we 


XLVITI 
EXHIBIT “A.’,—JOURNAL ENTRY. 


Fourth day—December 7th. 

Court met pursuant to adjournment, officers all present. Journal read. 

R. T. Burton, Deputy Marshal, made return of the summons issued in 
the case of C. Vorhis & Co. vs. Robert Caldwell, and W. P. Reynolds vs. 
Alfred B. Lambson, and the subpoenas issued in the case of the People vs. 
William Sullivan, all endorsed duly served. Clerk issued five subpoenas for 
witnesses before United States Grand Jury, returnable forthwith, 

Dimmick B. Huntington was appointed by M. Holman, United States 
District Attorney, Assistant Interpreter for the Indians, to interpret both 
before the United States Grand Jury and Court, and he appeared before the 
Clerk and was duly sworn as such Interpreter. 

The United States Grand Jury not being ready to make any present- 
ments, the Court adjourned until the following morning at eleven o’clock, 

LEO. SHAVER, Judge. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ah 
County OF SALT LAKE. rf 


T, H. G. McMillan, Deputy Clerk of the Third Judicial District Court 
of Utah Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and 
correct copy of the original Journal of Minute Book entries of the First 
Judicial J istrict Court of Uiah Territory, of the proceedings of said 
Court, had and entered onthe 7th day of December, 1854, as tho same 
appears on page 216 of the Journal of said Court now in my possession. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court at Salt Lake City 
this 18th day of May, A. D. 1881. 
[SEAT] H.G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. 


EXHIBIT “B,’”—RULE OF COURT. 


In regard to foreigners that wished to be naturalized and become citizens 
of the United States or declare their intention the Court ordered that the 
following rule be entered, viz: 

Vhat all persons declaring their intention to become citizens of the 
United States of America shall, at the time of making the declaration, pay 
the sum of one dollar for the oath of declaration and record entry of the 
same, and two dollars for the certificate and seal of such declaration, with 
naturalization and recording the same, and that the United States 
Marshal for this Territory procure at the expense of the Government of the 
United States a suitable book with blanks printed therein, for revsording 
said declarations and naturalizations for the use of this Court. 

LEO. SHAVER. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, ) ah 
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. jf 


T, H. G. MeMillan, Deputy Clerk of the Third Judicial District Court of 
Utah Territory,do hereby certify that the foregoing isa full, true and correct 
copy of the original order made and entered on page 177 of the Journal of 
the First Judicial District Court of Utah Territory, on the 18th day of 
January, 1854, of record in my office and in my custody. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said Court, atSalt Lake 
City, this 18th day of May, A. D. 1881. 
/ (SEAL. ] H. G.. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. 


XLIX 
pM s 93 8d MAL BL 


CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP OF ONE WHo ARRIVED IN THE UNITED 
STATES BEFORE HE WAS EIGHTEEN, 


United States First District Court 


Twa r . ! 5 5 
TERRITORY OF UTaH, for the Territory of Utah. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Ss 
GREAT SALT LAKE COUNTY. 

Be it remembered, that on the seventh day of December, A. D. 1854, 
George Q. Cannon, a subject of Queen Victoria, made application and satis- 
tied the court that he came to reside inthe United States before he was 
eighteen years of age; And thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon appeared 
in open court, and was sworn in due form of law, and on his oath did say, 
that for three years last past, 1t has been his bona fide intention to become a 
citizen of the United States. and to renounce and abjure forever all allegi- 
ance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty 
whatever; and thereupon, the court being satisfied by the oaths of Joseph 
Cain and Elias Smith, two citizens of the United States, that the said George 
Q. Cannon, for one year last past, has resided in this Territory, and for four 
years previous thereto he resided in the United States—that during that time 
he has behaved as aman of good moral character—that he is attached to the 
principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the 
good order of the inhabitants thereof, admitted him to bea citizen of the 
same. And thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon was in due form of law 
sworn to support the Consitution of the United States, and absolutely and 
entirely to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to every 
foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and particularly 
to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subject he heretofore 
has been. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, 
and affixed the seal of said court, this seventh day of De- 

[SEAL.] cember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four and of 

the Independence of the United States the seventy-ninth. 
W. IL. APPLEBY. Clerk. 


PLB rae De 


DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 


I, William C. Staines, do declare on oath that it is bona fide my intention 
to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce and abjure forever 
all allegiance and fidelity to all aud any foreign Prince, Potentate, State and 
Sovereignty whatever, and particularly to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain 
and Ireland, of whom I was a subject. 

Sworn before me, at my office in G. S. L. City, this 5th day 
of January, A. D. 1853. 

[SEAL. ] W. I. APPLEBY, 

Olerk of the United States First District Court in and for the 
Territory of Utah, 
10 


L 


CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP. 


UNITED SraATEsS OF AMERICA, ) United States Third District Court 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, SS. for theTerritory of Utah. 
GREAT Satv LAKE County, } 


Be it remembered, that on the 22d day of September, A. D. 1859, John 
Orson Angus, a subject of Queen Victoria, made application to become a 
citizen of the United States, and produced to this Court satisfactory evidence 
that he, on the fifth day of July, A. D. 1856, in due form of law, declared his 
intention to become such a citizen; and, thereupon, the Court being satisfied 
by the oaths of Robert L. Campbell and Thomas Bullock, two citizens of the 
United States, thet the said John O, Angus for one year last past has resided 
in this Territory, and foreighteen years previous thereto he has resided in 
the United States of America. During thattime he has behaved as a man 
of good inoral character; that he is attached to the principles of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and well disposed to the good order of the inhabi- 
tants thereof, and admitted him to be a citizen of the same. And thereupon 
the said John Orson Angus was sworn in due form of law to support the 
Constitution of the United States, and absolutely and entirely renounce, 
and abjure, forever, all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, 
Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and particularly to Victoria, 
Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subject he heretofore has been. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name 

and affixed the seal of said Court, this twenty-second day of 

September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, and of the independ- 
ance of the United States the 84th, 

[SEAL, ] CurrIs E, Bouton, Clerk. 


EXHIB Tati i? 
CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP OF ONE WHO ARRIVED IN THE UNITED 
STATES BEFORE HE WAS EIGHTEEN. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, 
GREAT SALT LAKE COUNTY. ) 


vac United States Supreme Court for the 
at Territory of Utah, 

Be it remembed, that on the 28th day of August, A. D. 1856, Samuel Ros- 
kelley, a subject of Queen Victoria, made application and satisfied the conrt 
that he came to reside in the United States before he was eighteen years of 
age; and thereupon the said Samuel Roskelley appeared in open court and 
was sworn in due form of law, and on his oath did say, that for three years 
last past it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United 
States, and to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to every 
foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever. And thereupon 
the court, being satisfied by the oaths of Ezekiel Lee and Horatio K. Whit- 
ney, two citizens of the United States, that the said Samuel Roskelley, for 
one year last past, has resided in this Territory, and for five years previous 
thereto he has resided in the United States; that during that time he has 
behaved as a man of good moral character; that he is attached to the princi- 
ples of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good 
order of the inhabitants thereof, admitted him to be a citizen of the 
same. And thereupon the said Samuel Roskelley was in due form of 
law sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, and abso- 
lutely and entirely to renouuce and abjure forever all allegiance and _ fidelity 
to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and 


LI 


particularly to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subject 
he has heretofore been. 
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, 
and affixed the seal of said court, this twenty-eighth day of 
August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, and of 
the independence of the United States the eighty-first. 


W. J. APPLEBY. 
Pr. Curtis E. Botton, Clerk. 


TERRITORY OF UTA, We 

Satt LAKE County. { 5* 

T, Ezra T. Spragne, Clerk of the Supreme Court of said Territory of 
Utah, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing is a full, true and 
correct copy of three several instruments found in ‘the book described in my 
testimony, of which the first is of the tirst class, the second of the second class, 
and the third of the third class nentioned by me in said testimony, which 
said instruments are as testified of record in my office. The testimony re- 
ferred to being attached hereto. 


In testimony whereof, [ have hereunto set my hand and the 
seal of said court, this 18th day of May, A. D. 1881. 
[SEAL. ] k. T. SPRAGUE, Clerk. 


SN ELLE an Ae” 


UNITED SraTEs OF AMERICA, Is United States First District Court 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, aap Je 
RUG Tet s cet CONT. for the ‘Territory of Utah. 


Re it remembered, that on the seventh day of December, A. D. 1854, 
George Q. Cannon, a subject of Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, 
made application and satisfied the court that he came to reside in the United 
States before he was eighteen years of age; 

And thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon appeared in open court, 
and was sworn in due form of law, and on his oath did say, that 
for three years last past, it has been his bona fide intention to become a 
citizen of the United States, and to renounce and abjure forever all allegi- 
ance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty 
whatever; and thereupon, the court being satisfied by the oaths of Joseph 
Cain and Elias Smith, two citizens of the “United States, that the said George 
Q. Cannon, for one year last past, has resided in this Territory, and for four 
years previous thereto he resided in the United States—that during that time 
he has behaved as aman of good moral character—that he is attached to the 
principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the 
good order of the inhabitants thereof, admitted him to bea citizen of the 
same. And thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon was in due form of law 
sworn to support the Consitution of the United States, and absolutely and 
entirely to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to every 
foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and particularly 
to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subject he heretofure 
has been. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, 


[Seal of and affixed the seal of said court, this seventh day of De- 
First Dist. cember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four and of 
Court. ] the Independence of the United States the seventy-ninth. 


W. I. APPLEBY. Clerk. 


LII 
The District Court of the Third Fudicial District, Viah Territory. 


THE UNITED STATES, Ex. Rel., ALLEN G.. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, 
US. 
GEORGE Q. CANNON, Defendant. 


Now comes the plaintiff by its attorneys, P. T. Van Zile, United 
States District Attorney for Utah Territory, and Sutherland & McBride, 
and for cause of action against the said defendant above named, alleges: 

That on the 8th day of January, 1881, said Allen G. Campbell received 
from the Governor of Utah Territory, pursuant to the law in that 
behalf, a certificate showing that at an election held in Utah Territory, on 
the day of November, "1880, according to law, for Delegate to the 
Forty-seventh Congress of the United States of Said Territory, said 
Campbell was duly elected, and that said certincate was issued to him 
accordingly, and that by reason of the facts stated therein, the said Camp- 
bell became entitled to said office, and is the Delegate to said Congress 
from the Territory of Utah. 

That at said election, the said George Q. Cannon was a candidate, 
and claimed to have been duly elected, and after the said certificate had 
been issued to said Campbell, the said defendant served a notice upon the 
said Campbell that he would contest his right to hold said office before the 
House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and an 
answer denying his said claim was served on defendant by the said Camp- 
bell, and the said contest is now pending, and that therefore, said Campbell 
has an interest in the matters hereinafter stated. And plaintiff alleges 
that the said George Q.Cannon is an alien, and was born of alien parentage 
out of the United States, and beyond its jurisdiction, and is now and has 
always been an alien and a subject of Great Britain within the kingdom of 
which he was born. That since Cannon claims and alleges that “he isa 
citizen of the Uuited States as plaintiff states on information and belief, 
and in support of such claim, asserts that he was born in the Kingdom oft 
Great Britian about the year 1827, that he came to the United States before 
he was eighteen years of age, and that on the 7th day of December, 1854, 
after having cesided for more than one year next preceding said date, in 
the Territory of Utah, and for more than five years prior thereto in ‘the 
United States, and having established the facts heretofore set forth by the 
oaths of two citizens, ‘and made the declarations and renunciations 
required by law in such cases, required to entitle him to be admitted as a 
citizen, he was on said day adjudicated by the District Court of the First 
ludicial District of said’ Terri: tory to be, and became a citizen of the 
United States, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of such—among 
these rights and privileges he claims “the right of suffrage and holding 
office, and the right to be chosen and hold ‘the office of Delegate to the 
House of Representativ es of the Congress of the United States—the 
office he now claims as aforesaid. That said defendant exhibits as genuine, 
and claims as such evidence of his said naturalization, a certificate. bearing 
date, the 7th day of December, 1854, purporting to bea certificate of the 
naturalization aforesaid, signed by W. 1. Appleby, as clerk thereof, and 
hearing the seal of said court, a COPY. of which is hereto annexed and 
made part hereof, marked Exhibit “A,” and that said certificate was issued 
to him in pursuance of said naturalization proceedings. 

And the plaintiff on information and belief, alleges that all of said 
assertlons, pretenses and claims, except as hereinafter stated are, and each 


LIIl 


of them is false; and that the facts in relation to the said claims of the 
defendant to be a citizen are as follows: 

That the said defendant was born a subject and in the limits of Great 
Britain, that while he was a youth and under eighteen years of age, he 
came to the Uuited States to join the community “of people, called Mor- 
mons or Latter-day Saints, a religious sect then located at Nauvoo, State 
of Illinois—said arrival being about the year 1842. That in the year 1847, 
he emigrated with the said community from their former location, to the 
Valley ‘of Great Salt Lake—being then a part of the Republic of Mexico. 
That in 1849, in pursuance of an order or direction from the authorities of 
said sect, he left the said Salt Lake Valley on a mission to make converts 
and proselytes to the sect of which he claimed to be a member. That in 
pursuance of said purpose, he went about the month of October, 1849 to 
California, engaged in the matters connected with and pertaining to his 
said mission. That about the month of July, 1850, in pursuance of said 
mission and purpose, he left California and went to the kingdom of Hawaaii, 
and there remained and resided continuously until about the month of 
August, 1854, when he went to the state of California; and afterwards, and 
on or about the 28th day of November, 1854, he arrived in Salt Lake City, 
Utah Territory. That prior to said date, he had at no time filed any dec- 
laration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and for 
more than four years prior to his pretended naturalization on the 7th day 
ot December, 1854, he had actually personally lived, labored and resided 
out of the Territory of Utah, and outside of the limits and jurisdiction of 
the United States; and this plaintiff further alleges that the witnesses 
named in the pretended certificate of naturalization, were at said date, resi- 
dents of Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, and had been for more than three 
years prior thereto, and that each of them then knew that said George Q. 
Cannon had not resided within the Territory of Utah or within the juris- 
diction of the United States, for the time required or the term set forth in 
said certificate, and said pretended testimony which, in said certificate was 
false to the knowledge of the defendant, if the same was given. The 
plaintiff alleges that the said First District Court did not on said day andl 
year, in any way adjudge the said George Q.Cannon to be a citizen or order 
ihe certificate aforesaid to be issued, or make any order therein, and 
alleges the fact to be (on information and belief). that said clerk, on his 
own motion, and without any authoritv from said court or its judge, did 
make out and issue said certificate to said defendant, and that the same is 
false and fraudulent, and that any and all claims to citizenship based 
thereon, are a fraud upon the Jaws and upon the United States. That in 
pursuance of his said claim to be a citizen of the United States, and of his 
right to hold the office of Delegate to Congress aforesaid, the said Cannon 
well knowing that he is not a ‘citizen, and that his pretended certificate is 
false and fraudulent, and was procured i in the manner heretofore set forth, 
has caused it to be believed to be genuine, and has procured himself to be 
Saene as Delegate from Utah, in the F orty-seventh Congress of the 
United States, and on information and belief, plaintiff states is fraudu- 
lently procuring to be paid to him as such vested delegate, the salary 
pertaining to said office—thus using said certificate asa means of obtain- 
ing money from the United States Treasury. Therefore, the plaintiff 
aye relief as follows: 

That this court adjudge and decree that the said defendant, 

Sustue QO. Cannon is not a citizen of the United States, and has not 
hitherto been or ever was naturalized according to law. as such. 


LIV 


2. That the certificate of naturalization, or pretended naturalization, 
now held by said Cannon, dated December 7th 1854, as set forth in the 
complaint, be adjudged fraudulent and void, and be annulled. 

3. That the said George Q. Cannon be enjoined and commanded to 
desist and refrain from demanding, accepting or receiving, from the 
Treasury of the United States, through its disbursing officer, the Sergeat- 
at-arms of the House of Representitives of the Congress of the United 
States, or any other person, directly or otherwise, the salary and compen- 
sation pertaining to the office of Delegate to the Forty-seventh Congress 
for the Territory of Utah, pending this action and upon the final hearing 
the injunction be made perpetual. 

4, For such other and further relief as the justice of the case may 
require, and for costs of this action. 

Pils VOANSZILE; 


U.S. Dist. Ait, and: 


SUTHERLAND & MCBRIDE, 
Plaintiff's Attorueys. 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, a3 
: : SS. 
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, f 


Allen G. Campbell being first duly sworn, according to law, deposes: 
I am the person named as the relator in the foregoing complaint, and have 
heard the same read and know its contents, and the same is true of my own 
knowledge, except such matters as are therein stated on information and 
belief, and those matters I believe to be true. 


A. G. CAMPBELL. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 8th day of June, 1881. 
[SEAL. | E.G. MATTHEWS, 


Notary Public, 
Filed June 8th, 1881. 


PEXHIBED @A3 


(Form same as Exhibit “C;” wording same as Exhibit ‘‘Z.’’) 


LV 
Iu the District Court for Third Fudicial District of Utah. 


UNITED STATES, Z£x fel., 
ALLEN G. CAMPBELL, 
Plaintiff, 
US. 
GEORGE Q. CANNON, 
Defendant. } 


} 
| Demurrer. 
| 


The defendant demurs to the complaint, and for cause of demurrer, 
alleges: 

‘Ist. That the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. 

2d. That “The plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue the cause of action 
mentioned in said writ, but the action should have been brought in the 
name of the real party in interest;” viz: Allen G. Campbell. 

3d. That there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiffin this: That the 
complaint attempts to unite a cause of action in which the United States, 
alone as a republic, in its own behalf is interested, and one in which Allen 
G. Campbell is alone interested. 

4th. That several causes of action have been improperly joined, to wit: 
A cause of action for annulling a certificate of naturalization, with a cause 
of action for enjoining defendant from exercising the functions of 
office of Delegate to Congress and receiving pay therefor. 

5th. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a 
cause of action. 

ARTHUR Brown, 
Atty for Deft. 
TERRITORY OF UTAH, \ 
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, es 


Arthur Brown being duly sworn, says: Iam the attorney of the 
defendant in this action. I know the matters contained in the foregoing 
demurrer. That it is not interposed for delay merely, but in good faith, 
and I believe it to be well taken. 

ARTHUR BROWN. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 16th day of June, 1881. 

O. J. AVERILL, Clere. 

By H. G. MCMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. 
Filed this 16th day of June, 1881. 


In the District Court of the Third Fudicial District of Utah, Salt 
Lake County. 


THE UNITED STATES, Ex. Rel., ALLEN G. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff. 
US. 
GEORGE Q. CANNON, Defendant. 


~ 


Zo Sutherland aud McBride, Plaintiffs Attorneys; P. T. Van Zile, 
District Attorney, Attorneys for Plaintiff. 


You will take notice that I shall move this Court, on Saturday, June 


LVI 


26th, 1881, at the opening of the Court on that day (at 9 a. m.), or as soon 
thereafter as counsel can be heard, that the injunction issued in this action 
be dissolved, and for such other and further relief as may be proper. This 
motion will be based on complaint and other papers on whine the injunc- 
tion was granted. 
ARTHUR BROWN, 
Atty for Deft. 
June 22, 1881. 


I hereby order that the time of service of this motion be shortened so 
that service on June 22nd, shall be sufficient for hearing the motion, 
June 26th. ; 

Dated June 22 1881, at 9 a.m. é 

Joun A. Hunter, Déistrict Fudge. 

Filed for plaintiff, June 22, 1881. i. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, hee 
COUNTYOF SALT UARE, Miva 


In the District Court, Third Fudicial District. 


THE UNITED STATES, Zr. Rel., ALLEN’ G. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, 
US. , 
GEORGE (. CANNON, Defendant. 


The motion of defendant to dissolve the injunction issued herein 
against defendant having been argued against defendant, having been 
argued and submitted to the Court, and the Court having considered the 
same, and being now advised, sustains said motion, and it is ordered and 
adjudged that the injunction heretofore issued herein againt the defendant 
be and the same is hereby dissolved. 

July 18, 1881. Joun A. HUNTER, Fudge. 


TERRITORY OF UTAH, 
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, Jf 


I, O. J. Averill, Clerk of the Third Judicial District Court of Utah 
Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct 
copy of the original order made and entered by said Court, July 18, 1881, 
in the above entitled action filed in my office. 

Witness my hand and Seal of said Court, at Salt Lake City, this 22d 
day of November, A. D. 1881. 

[SEAL. | Os: |. AVERILL, 2Ciere. 

} By H.G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. 


SS. 


LVII 
In the District Court for the Third Fudictal District of Utah Territory. 


THE UNITED STATES on the relation of ALLEN G. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, 
US. 
GEORGE (Q. CANNON, Defendant, 


Complaint to annul a certificate held by defendant and used by him as a 
Certificate of Naturalization. 


The demurrer of the defendant to the complaint filed in this action 
having been heretofore argued by counsel for the respective parties, and 
taken under advisement; and the court having duly considered the same; 
and it appearing to the court that the attorney general of the United States 
should tile complaint in behalf of the government in such cases; and that 
from the facts stated in the complaint, which are admitted by defendant’s 
demurrer, that there is no record of defendant’s naturalization, and that no 
proceeding for that purpose ever took place in court, and that the certifi- 
cate held by defendant as a certificate of naturalization was obtained by 
fraud and has been fraudulently used, and is void onits face in not professing 
to be the copy of a record and not certifying a regular naturalization, and 
therefore that there is no sufficient cause shown for annulling it, it is 
ordered that the said demurrer be and the same is hereby sustained, and 
that the complaint be, and is hereby dismissed. . 

Attest, October 31, 1881. 

Joun A. Hunter, Fudve. 

[SEAL. | H. G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk, 


Filed October 31, 1881. 


i > h — > «a. .., wea 


7 “4 ‘a a i = . 
‘oa ei ses 
‘ 4 “ 
Ne Lee Oe 
ey pe 
. f @ . . 
> é * 
Ps > 
~ 
‘ 
‘ ’ 
? te 
as Y thd 
‘ oa 43 
‘ . te. 
y te te 
t “ 
- 
P, - 
¢ 4 
a . ee " 
2% 
¢ « 
Car 
+ ‘ ’ 
A ‘ 
¥ ‘ 
tr a 
. 
Piers” 
a 
5 
. 
e 
> 
* 
e 
? 
\ 
f . 
‘ . 


Rod. e Ry, ., * ; 
uP EN ye 


i tn, +S 
ail . a ; cheese 
' : ie Bi AOeaE » a : 


x 4 
7 
%? oie | 
‘ ¢ 
eine F y ta. 
, ee a oe 
“y EF 
e 
i i ‘a. 
. 
. has a4 
; F ‘ 2 ye t 
> : Wi ose} i; j VEG 
ae | 
' ' ved bre | : es 
eh , ett a fa og) we aye 


‘ ; ’ PO Brahe, wei aT wal BME 7 ‘ 

cnipes j i } Aiiee Pak d “i Laat he. “4a 

CAMS OVER PER AIRSE tal GER sv oa aay 
} ygt 1f;: av throes Ss ; ays “\ 


4dr ndtet: 49 st 44 aie 
‘ a. t Mato be ‘eras i ae 
s fad S030. 2: inthe Ape vga’ 
; 


ee 


Tk LAN Stes 0) Ri 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS- 


A Whi 


0112 


